Archived

Craig vs Krauss

Read 28191 times

NicOfTime

  • Guest
Re: Nothing
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2014, 01:15:50 pm »
And so now do you think beauty is real and truth maybe too?

Well, pretty fuzzy terms.  We certainly label some things "beautiful".  The experience is certainly real.  But we may be labeling the experience...while the thing being experienced is...well...a thing being experienced, neither beautiful or anything else.

Truth?  To me, it's a description that matches the thing being described.  Pretty much a mechanical description...doesn't elevate "truth" to any arbitrary level.

or are we just coal miners trying to keep warm and let somebody else do the dirty work for us while we keep warm. And can you not see the music in this?

I've been a musician all my life...40 years professionally.  I see music in everything.

1

Lambert

  • **
  • 916 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2014, 01:33:37 pm »
I do not claim to have the final word in this, but I see beauty as the unifying agent that is universal in mankind and that has a truth factor behind it for support. The same is true for all sentient beings, as I see it, wherein also love is made known that although is without substance is known to die for and thus is greater than us.

And of course, music is a subset of this in the arts, good for you, with philosophy being the finest of the fine arts, or so it is meant to be in the end when wisdom herself is ours to behold.

 

2

NicOfTime

  • Guest
Re: Nothing
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2014, 02:47:36 pm »
I do not claim to have the final word in this, but I see beauty as the unifying agent that is universal in mankind and that has a truth factor behind it for support. The same is true for all sentient beings, as I see it, wherein also love is made known that although is without substance is known to die for and thus is greater than us.

And of course, music is a subset of this in the arts, good for you, with philosophy being the finest of the fine arts, or so it is meant to be in the end when wisdom herself is ours to behold.



I love metaphysical fuzziness.  My love for life has no bounds.  I often say that I don't play music, but rather music plays me.

That is, until I try to fix a radar system.  At that point, I put the beautiful fuzziness aside, and put on my uncompromising mechanistic hat...because there's really no magic there.

You know, the right tool for the job?

When trying to reverse-engineer existence, metaphysics provides some wonderful descriptions, but few if any clues about what's actually going on mechanistically.

3

Lambert

  • **
  • 916 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2014, 04:04:29 pm »
I see your problem and sometimes wonder how I arrived at the place I arrived and don't remember how I got here as if my car just takes me there and then ask myself why it would do that to me.

Sure, and this is the same old argument wherein when push come to shove we lean on that which we can lean on, while we forget, or perhaps are in total oblivion of the fact that all our human endeavors originate from intuition itself, which is an 'it' and therefore is real, and is unfailingly true in pure form, and that is why we smile when we finish what we set out to do.

It makes science exhilarating even, as if we proved to our self that our intuition was right from the start.


4

OneCheesyNacho

  • **
  • 819 Posts
  • I'm great with dip!
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2014, 04:48:15 pm »
Quote

Quote
I think what we need to keep in mind here is that by nothing, we don't mean 'something'. Its not as though there was a state of nothingness prior to the origin of the universe and the universe popped into being in that state. We mean that the beginning of the universe was not preceded by anything. So to say that the universe came into being out of nothing, is simply to say the universe came into being without a cause. This is obviously logically absurd.

Not really.  Nothing is still a circumstance.  And circumstance has consequences.

Of course nothing has a consequence...nothing. Nothing means "not anything". But saying 'nothing' is unstable is logically incoherent as nothing by definition (not Krauss') cannot have properties.



Quote
Quote
No. Not premature at all.

Well, yes it is premature.  There is no final answer at this time...the final chapter on this has yet to be written.  Speculation, of course, is not premature...pretty much all scientific propositions start out as some kind of speculation...but it is premature to assert that there can be no naturalistic explanation.  The point has been...and is...that there may be a logical...and not a theological...solution.

No. How can there be naturalistic explanations of something that is beyond its scope? Again that is logically incoherent. Naturalism deals with things that you can observe/measure. If there is something that you cannot observe/measure then it is beyond naturalism's scope and therefore cannot be explained by naturalism. So saying that naturalism will be able to find such an explanation being its scope is logically baseless optimism. It is like saying that "don't worry, with time, we will figure out how to make a round-square".

 
Quote
Quote
You said it yourself: "science is all about detectability / observability / verifiability". So in that case Naturalism is all about detectability /observability /verifiability. If something cannot be detected/observed/verified because they are timeless/space-less/immaterial, then they are beyond naturalistic explanations? Wouldn't you agree?

That's assuming the answer is beyond logic.  But, yes, you're right...anything that is non-detectable in any way, shape, or form will be beyond science...but also beyond anyone's capacity to prove its existence.  The proposition that a logical solution may be at the heart of the matter has scientifically discernable effects (by definition, because the topic here is existence, which is certainly detectable), and it may well be possible to derive specific predictions from the hypothesis that a logical issue may be operating at the most fundamental level of existence itself.

Okay, so I got from that is that you agree that is not premature to say that naturalism cannot explain things that exist beyond measured/observed reality (the universe). So by definition, Naturalism cannot prove God exists or anything beyond the universe. Now, I do not agree with you saying that if something is beyond our observable/detectable scope, then it does not exist. Something outside of the universe could exist, but we just can't detect it because it is beyond science's scope. So by saying that "the topic here is existence, which is certainly detectable" is wrong. Existence doesn't have to be always detectable by humans.

 It very well could exist, but we just don't know it does. Imagine a deep sea fish that is blind and will never have contact with humans. To it, humans do not exist because it cannot detect humans. So if it were to apply its principles of naturalism, it would never be able to determine what exists beyond the ocean. But things DO exist beyond the ocean, it is just not within the naturalistic scope of the deep-sea fish. This analogy is not perfect, but it demonstrates my point.

Quote
Quote
So here you are assuming that everything has measurable consequences thereby making naturalism true. But not all things have to have measurable consequences, if this is the case, then naturalism holds false.

A bit of a mis-read on your part here...I have not assumed that everything has measurable consequences...but it's entirely possible that a logical issue at the most fundamental level of existence will have measurable consequences, and may resolve some of the "spooky" behavior already observed at the quantum level.

Very sorry for misrepresenting you. I do agree it is possible that at the most fundamental level of existence we could detect certain things that would hint at the existence of what is there beyond the universe. But, my argument was not of this, I was saying that it is no surprise that science did not prove God. That is because it cannot prove God, because God by definition exists outside of detectable reality (beyond naturalistic scope).

Quote
Quote
As I said earlier, you are assuming that all things can be measured/observed/verified.


No, I never said that, nor do I assume it.  But we clearly have a very observable, measureable existence here.  And we are observing some interesting things at the quantum level that are not inconsistent with the proposition that "nothing" may have measurable consequences.

Anything that cannot be observed / detected in any way, directly or indirectly, is indistinguishable from things that don't exist at all.

Again very sorry.

But for your second statement, I feel like you have defined the word nothing. "nothing" is not anything, that is my definition. By definition, nothing cannot have properties.  If you are deciding to refer to nothing as "the sea of fluctuating energy", then I agree with you, that it does have measurable consequences.

Your third statement is absolutely wrong. Please refer to my deep sea fish analogy. That fish cannot observe humans, it does not mean we don't exist--it means we don't exist in their perception! There are things humans cannot observe, it does not mean they don't exist. So I would disagree, things that cannot be observed by humans are not the same as nonexistent things. But I do agree that they are indistinguishable TO the human perception.

Quote
Quote
What if something is timeless/space-less/transcendent and cannot be measured/observed/verified...


Well, then, you certainly cannot assert that it exists, can you?


You misunderstood my point. What I was arguing was that naturalism cannot account for everything that exists. It could only account for things that exist in the universe because we could only measure/observe only things that exist in the universe. This is due to the fact that the universe is the beginning of all matter/energy and time, and science deals with just those concepts. Things outside of matter/energy/time cannot be explained by naturalism.

So can you assert they do or don't exist with evidence? Of course not, naturalism can't answer that question.

Quote
Quote
again, Naturalism cannot answer this question so it cannot be determined as per naturalistic explanation because the nature of the entity is not naturalistic.


If there's no way to detect, measure, observe, corroborate, verify, validate something, then how do you differentiate that from something that doesn't exist?

There are a few ways, like if it must logically exist or if it is the best explanation for existence or if it must exist by necessity etc. The thing is, my argument was, we do not have evidence for God because there can't be evidence for God since God exists outside of observable/measurable reality (universe).

Now what you are getting at is an idealist perspective. You are saying that quantum physics says that nothing exists unless it is measured. I agree with you. But things do exist without being measured by humans...so how could anything exist that we didn't know of, like Dark matter. From this you conclude that a mind--an observer exists (God) who views everything thus makes everything existent --including the deep sea fish, humans and things humans haven't yet discovered.  Michio Kaku agrees with this. For example, how could humans exist by what quantum mechanics tells us to the perception of a deep sea fish. The answer is we don't, BUT, we do exist because a mind is observing everything in the universe. To familiarize yourself with this very important concept, I recommend this video which explains it beautifully!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM&feature=c4-overview&list=UU5qDet6sa6rODi7t6wfpg8g

^Watching this, I think will be beneficial as it will introduce you to what we make of reality!

5

NicOfTime

  • Guest
Re: Nothing
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2014, 07:37:07 pm »
Now, I do not agree with you saying that if something is beyond our observable/detectable scope, then it does not exist.

Sigh.  I'm amazed by what folks misunderstand.

And, really, I don't have time to clear up your misunderstandings.

If something has no effect upon this existence whatsoever...at any time, in any way...I didn't say it didn't exist.  I said it was functionally equivalent to non-existence.

If it has no effect on our existence whatsoever, then you cannot possibly validate its existence...and any assertion you might make about that is speaking beyond your own possible knowledge, by definition.

If you're going to insist on the existence of things that have no effect whatsoever on our own existence...then have fun.

I simply don't have time to clear up your mis-reads.  And that's just the first of many.

I'm familiar with the video...cherry-picked quotes...deliberate mis-leads...strawmen...and caricatures.

It doesn't have to know a lot.  It just has to know more than the person watching it.

If you're impressed by that...then we have little common ground...and it's no wonder you mis-read me.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 07:43:56 pm by NicOfTime »

6

OneCheesyNacho

  • **
  • 819 Posts
  • I'm great with dip!
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2014, 10:53:34 pm »
Now, I do not agree with you saying that if something is beyond our observable/detectable scope, then it does not exist.

Sigh.  I'm amazed by what folks misunderstand.

And, really, I don't have time to clear up your misunderstandings.

If something has no effect upon this existence whatsoever...at any time, in any way...I didn't say it didn't exist.  I said it was functionally equivalent to non-existence.

If it has no effect on our existence whatsoever, then you cannot possibly validate its existence...and any assertion you might make about that is speaking beyond your own possible knowledge, by definition.

If you're going to insist on the existence of things that have no effect whatsoever on our own existence...then have fun.

I simply don't have time to clear up your mis-reads.  And that's just the first of many.

I'm familiar with the video...cherry-picked quotes...deliberate mis-leads...strawmen...and caricatures.

It doesn't have to know a lot.  It just has to know more than the person watching it.

If you're impressed by that...then we have little common ground...and it's no wonder you mis-read me.

Ad homimem attacks have been disregarded...

I'm not sure where you get the idea that I was implying that it didn't have an effect into our existence. It does have an effect, it allowed our existence. But we cannot detect such things beyond the universe, because naturalism and science can only deal with things that exist in the universe (matter, time, energy). God by definition does not exist in the universe, therefore it is no surprise he can't be detected by science.

I would say that you mis-read me and my argument. I said it is no surprise that there is no proof of God because God by definition is outside of the scientific and naturalistic scope. 

Secondly, I am not impressed by the video, I am impressed of the findings in quantum mechanics. You seemed to have some sort of idealistic perspective and I agreed. If you don't agree with the video that quantum mechanics has debunked realism, then please present reasons why. I can't think of any way to honestly do this while being faithful to the evidence.

Now I don't think I mis-read you, you said it plainly " If there's no way to detect, measure, observe, corroborate, verify, validate something, then how do you differentiate that from something that doesn't exist?" This is a clear implication that you believe that if something cannot be detected/measured/observed/validated, then it is as if it doesn't exist. I countered by saying that this argument is incoherent. If I have misread you, then what exactly was your point and why was this relevant to this debate about naturalism?

If you were to agree that naturalism cannot prove God because God is beyond space-time, then this goes against your initial statements in saying that (and I quote you) "So...I wouldn't say that a naturalistic viewpoint has no answer to these questions...but that the answer has not yet been clearly determined." And "but to say these are unanswerable through an entirely naturalistic explanation is, at this point, premature."

With the fact that Naturalism cannot account for things beyond matter/time/energy which exist only in the universe (multiverse), then a naturalistic viewpoint has no answer to this question and no definite future answer can be determined. It would be like having the hope that science would be able to find a round square in the future.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 11:07:03 pm by mclink »

7

shoaibwh1

  • *
  • 3 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #37 on: February 04, 2014, 11:08:28 pm »
WONDERFUL Post.thanks for share..extra wait .. …

8

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #38 on: June 11, 2014, 08:35:09 pm »

The creation of the Universe (and therefore space and time) means that "before" the Big Bang, time and space did not exist.

This is nonsense, since inflation occured prior to the (hot) big bang, and for sure there was space time and matter then.

Don't equate the big bang with the fictional singularity, since that has not happened. General Relativity breaks down there, since als Quantum Mechanics plays a role under those circumstances,. so obviously a theory based only on GR can not predict what happens then. GR + QM can, and we can at least approximate that. Starbinsky did that already in 1980, and developed the first mechanism similar to inflation.

9

Rob Heusdens

  • **
  • 179 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2014, 03:10:32 am »
There are two sources of knowledge: observation, and logic. We don't need to observe nothingness to know that nothing can come from it, we can tell that from logic. Just like we don't need to take two piles of a trillion objects and observe them being put together to know that a trillion plus a trillion is two trillion.

I agree that logic tells us that nothing can come from the absolute nothing that Craig needs for his proof of God.  However, logic does not dictate reality...reality operates all on it's own.  Quantum mechanics is hardly logical, yet that is the way the universe works.

We simply don't know if it is even possible in reality to have the "absolute nothing" in the first place.  And, in terms of evidence, there is no such evidence that it exists.

Well there are obvious cases in which you can know the truthvalue of a statement without having the need to look for evidencen.

P: All bachelors are not married.

P is true by definition.

And also:

Q: Nothing comes from nothing.

Q is true by definition.

10

Ghostofhitchens

  • **
  • 293 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2014, 05:32:50 pm »
What is the point in using formal logic structure to make the most juvenile of assertions?

Prove this:  'Nothing' is a relevant concept when discussing the nature of the universe. 

11

peanutaxis

  • **
  • 38 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #41 on: August 20, 2014, 12:08:38 am »
Haha. Because it makes one feel like one is talking sense. Just like Jebus and the afterlife etc.

12

watkinsje13

  • **
  • 80 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #42 on: October 07, 2014, 06:21:42 pm »
If i'm repeating whats already been said then my bad, I am pretty sure that in the "why does anything exist debate" Krauss states that as far as we can tell the big bang happened and there was nothing before it which he defines nothing as no time or space for anything to happen in and I respected him for defining it that way becuase I thought he was really being truthful and holding to what science says. Right after that he goes on to say that if there were a multiverse it could cause our universe to start existing, but doesnt that mean you have to ask the question what did the multiverse act on to create the universe because you wouldnt think that the multiverse could force itself to exist in place that it isnt able to exist in because its not there, given the definition of nothing Krauss provides as to what was there before the big bang.

13

Bill McEnaney

  • ***
  • 2986 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #43 on: July 30, 2016, 11:49:44 pm »
The word "nothing" usually means "not anything."  But Krauss's nothing is something.

14

Andyboinen

  • **
  • 105 Posts
  • I'm an asshole.
    • View Profile
Re: Nothing
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2016, 06:40:10 am »
No. There is simply no evidence for God. Saying the Bible is evidence for God is like saying the Harry Potter series is proof that Voldemort existed, or the LOTR series proves that Middle-Earth exists etc. It's simply ridiculous and illogical.
For there is no respect of persons with God. - Romans 2:11