Monday, September 16, 2013

Life, the Universe and Nothing: Why is there something rather than nothing?




This is the second debate that William Lane Craig and Lawrence Krauss had in Australia this past August. This debate topic was about why there is something rather than nothing. Craig used the cosmological argument from contingency to make his case, which I think is a slightly better version of the kalam cosmological argument. They didn't really go into detail over the argument during the discussion, but one thing the contingency argument presupposes is the principle of sufficient reason, which Craig cannot logically prove. He just assumes it. And unfortunately, since Krauss is not a philosopher (and is an outspoken hater of philosophy), he doesn't call Craig out on this. Overall, I think Krauss did a pretty decent job handling the inanity of Craig and his arguments but his ignorance to philosophy and religion weaken him in areas where he could have attacked Craig a lot harder. He at least deserves props just for being able to deal with him for 3 debates in a row.


A few highlights include 29:50 when Craig accuses Krauss of equivocating when it comes to the word "nothing." But Krauss says in his opener that he's using "nothing" to describe the quantum vacuum of empty space that was thought for many years to be absent of anything, and which we now know is actually filled with some 70 percent of the universe in the form of dark energy. A good philosophical argument can be made that it's actually impossible that absolute nothing ever existed, another point Krauss doesn't make because of his ignorance to philosophy. I make that argument here.

At 1:24:30 Lawrence says to Craig that book reviews can be nonsense, like movie reviews, and he is obviously referring to David Albert's critical review of his book A Universe From Nothing, that Craig used in his opening speech. And Craig nods in affirmation.

At 1:25:20 the moderator asks Craig, "How did God decide to create the world if there was no time to make any decisions?" to which Craig replies is an "interesting question." He goes on to expound, "Deciding, isn't necessarily a temporal activity. One can have an intention that isn't the result of a previous state of indecision. So I would say that God exists timelessly with the intention that a physical world exist. And then there's an exercise of this causal power, um, that brings the universe into existence. But we shouldn't think of God as existing, twiddling his thumbs, from eternity and then "deciding" to make a universe. That's not only incompatible with his timelessness, it's incompatible with his omniscience...So, I would say that God simply has a timeless, free intention of the will to do something, and then there's an exercise of causal power to bring the universe into being." In other words, god's intent to create our universe exists eternally and there was never a possibility of our universe not existing, since the intention of creating another universe, or no universe, would also have existed eternally. Krauss unfortunately doesn't bring up any objections to this idea, but I've critiqued it here and here.

At 1:27:45 Craig defines "faith" as believing what you have good reason to think is true.

At 1:28:30 Craig explains his emotional conversion to Christianity. "The idea that the God of the universe could love me, that worm down there on that speck of dust called planet earth just overwhelmed me." This goes to show you how religious belief is largely emotional, not logical. See further critique of this here and here.



11 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I guess as Craig defines it, he doesn't actually have faith, since he doesn't have good reasons to think it's true.

    Also, it's nice to see Craig admitting that his entire belief system is based upon an emotional experience - his whole "Testimony of the Holy Spirit" thing is based upon being a teenager and having a good cry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my debates with theists, they almost all believe on faith first via emotional experiences, and then try to justify their faith, using bad logic and circular reasoning. It is nice to hear them be honest once and a while.

      Delete
    2. Well, not that honest - we're to believe that his teenage emotional experience is of more value than the experiences of other people, and that he is then validated in his use of logical argument ONLY to back up his claims, and never to investigate them (the so called ministerial vs magisterial use of logic which WLC wholeheartedly endorses).

      Delete
    3. well yes, I'd hate to call Craig "honest."

      Delete
  3. A passage from WLC's "Reasonable Faith":
    A person raised in a cultural milieu in which Christianity is still seen as an intellectually viable option will display an openness to the gospel which a person who is secularized will not. For the secular person you may as well tell him to believe in fairies or leprechauns as in Jesus Christ! Or, to give a more realistic illustration, it is like our being approached on the street by a devotee of the Hare Krishna movement who invites us to believe in Krishna. Such an invitation strikes us as bizarre, freakish, even amusing. But to a person on the streets of Delhi, such an invitation would, I assume, appear quite reasonable and be serious cause for reflection."

    It's strange that Craig can admit that Christianity IS absurd unless you're raised to accept ignore it's absurdity, and admit that his reason(s) for converting were emotional/subjective in nature, and yet turn around and make claims that non-Christians have no excuse for their rejection of Christianity:
    "The Bible says all men are without excuse. Even those who are given no good reason to believe and many persuasive reasons to disbelieve have no excuse, because the ultimate reason they do not believe is that they have deliberately rejected God's Holy Spirit."

    The mind boggles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been debating with presuppositionalists recently to get a taste of their apologetics, and I see that reflected in Craig's writings a bit. According to them, I have to assume their particular Christian worldview in order to somehow see its "truth." In other words, I have to adopt a view - a priori - that demons haunt this world and are messing with our senses, and misleading us away from Christianity, with absolutely no evidence to support that view whatsoever. If that is all they are offering me, yes I can easily dismiss this absurd and laughable superstitious mindset.

      Delete
    2. I've found presuppers to be rather ridiculous - we're have you been discussing with them, if you don't mind me asking?

      Delete
    3. http://theologicalsushi.blogspot.com/

      The guy who writes this blog is a hardcore presuppositionalist. His starting point is the infallibility and truth of the bible which he assumes a priori, and anything that contradicts it he rules out a priori, and then he accuses you of presupposing naturalism. And he has the gall of accusing atheists of being irrational.

      Delete
    4. Just had a brief look at some of his posts - quite hilarious! :-)

      Delete
    5. Yeah, he's about as fundamentalist as you can get. On one of his posts he reiterates a fundie talking point, "All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenant obligations."

      It's so sad.

      Delete

Share

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...