Carroll is good at articulating materialist myths

[V.I.Redins]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

[Pragmatic]

Ok.

[Fred]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

Should we reject every theory that has unobservable implications?  I guess you think we should reject the Big Bang theory because we can't create or observe one.  Is that it?

[grosso]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

[aleph naught]

One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.

Welcome, but I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about.

[Raj]

The universe is a vastly desolate place and in total entropy rises. Locally, howevere, there ARE fluctuations around this average rate, so that instead of absolutely everywhere more and more chaos arising (although on average more and more chaos may arise), there are in places the opposite: structures arise. In particular the mechanism of gravity is metaphysically speaking a force against chaos: things organise themselves together.

Having these pieces of observations, in order for there to be a pocket of the universe, where order arises with such success as is exhibited around us, there universe has to be an incredibly vast place. And in fact our universe is extremely vast.

So the view is not completely without basis. It might not be completely right. But it is not obviously wrong.

Consider the rhetoric use to say, that there be life elsewhere in the universe: fast amounts of desolation don't make sense. This is not true: the emptiness and barrenness does fulfil a purpose, as shown above.


I agree with aleph nought: this is no doctrine of Materialism. Materialism simply makes claims about what substance all things must consist of, in order to exist. It denies the spiritual dimension as having any ontological reality. Within this world view there are serious views about how phaenomene like consciousness might be explained. (Even if one disagrees with them, they are really worthwhile listening to as they are very informative for pragmatic naturalism.)

The claim that materialists believe that tornadoes sweeping through junk piles enough times give rise to jumbo jets, is just pure nonsense and nothing short of a straw man fallacy. A materialist (would not propose but rather) takes on the explanation provided by the naturalist, that namely through a process consisting of a complex interaction of diversification, selection, and selforganisation, organised structure SLOWLY (but surely) arises. This is not PURE chance, but rather chance+selection/filtration given through the environment+self-organisation (necessity).

[Architecto]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

But, it is supported by all the available data. And:

1.There is no logical contradiction
2. There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, etc. Mind.

[grosso]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

But, it is supported by all the available data. And:

1.There is no logical contradiction
2. There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, etc. Mind.

Exactly what is supported by all the available data?

[Architecto]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

But, it is supported by all the available data. And:

1.There is no logical contradiction
2. There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, etc. Mind.

Exactly what is supported by all the available data?

Random fluctuations. The timeless, spaceless, state of things before the Big Bang. That random fluctuations create matter, etc.

In short, the entire basis of naturalism is supported by the available data - after all, there is no data on God. By design.

[lucious]

To say there is a timeless state of affairs before the beginning is contradictory.

[Huskqa]

To say there is a timeless state of affairs before the beginning is contradictory.

Equally problematic for your god. BTW, Sean Carrol does not talk about a "before" he talks about a first moment of time.

[grosso]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

But, it is supported by all the available data. And:

1.There is no logical contradiction
2. There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, etc. Mind.

Exactly what is supported by all the available data?

Random fluctuations. The timeless, spaceless, state of things before the Big Bang. That random fluctuations create matter, etc.

In short, the entire basis of naturalism is supported by the available data - after all, there is no data on God. By design.

Who told you this?

[lucious]

To say there is a timeless state of affairs before the beginning is contradictory.

Equally problematic for your god. BTW, Sean Carrol does not talk about a "before" he talks about a first moment of time.

Ok, so if there is a first moment of time, the argument is vindicated.

I can't recall Craig or any proponent of the argument saying there was something "before" time. This is a strawman.

[Architecto]

Having just joined this forum, I am a bit late with these comments but here goes.
One of the materialist doctrines that flies in the face of reason is that entropy is entropy and that an explosion can ultimately yield skyscrapers and submarines.  Carroll seems to accept unquestioningly that heat can produce humans and matter in motion can produce machinery.  This has never been demonstrated or observed.  The blind workings of nature are nearly sterile when it comes to producing useful complexity regardless of how open a system might be.  In contrast, virtually all observable instances of useful creativity have been the result of intelligent (human) effort.   Like Dawkins, Carroll is an example of ingenuity making nonsense seem plausible.

The one way in which someone could theoretically defend such a view is to appeal to random fluctuations of baseline entropy.

Statistically speaking, if such fluctuations can occur, given enough time they will occur. And given enough time one such fluctuation will be so immensely powerful that it will create whatever you want.

In a sense, this is little more than infinity of the gaps.

But, it is supported by all the available data. And:

1.There is no logical contradiction
2. There is no evidence of a spaceless, timeless, etc. Mind.

Exactly what is supported by all the available data?

Random fluctuations. The timeless, spaceless, state of things before the Big Bang. That random fluctuations create matter, etc.

In short, the entire basis of naturalism is supported by the available data - after all, there is no data on God. By design.

Who told you this?

It's common knowledge. For example:

http://www.space.com/16281-big-bang-god-intervention-science.html

[grosso]

Doesn't seem to me to be common knowledge at all, that the available data supports naturalism. Your article doesn't make any claim about naturalism either.

Do you have a clear grasp of what naturalism says? Can you lay out the inference that goes from scientific data to naturalism?