Who won?

[kravarnik]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

It's no magic. Minds can cause stuff, get over it. Stop being an infantile and start dealing with these notions appropriately for a grown man who claims to be rational.


As you have noticed I didn't resort to mockery to deal with your issues that you raise. I don't understand why you do resort to this. I mean, just say you can't understand that, or something, but don't approach the whole matter with the mindset and behavior of a child.

[jakswan]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

It's no magic. Minds can cause stuff, get over it. Stop being an infantile and start dealing with these notions appropriately for a grown man who claims to be rational.

As you have noticed I didn't resort to mockery to deal with your issues that you raise. I don't understand why you do resort to this. I mean, just say you can't understand that, or something, but don't approach the whole matter with the mindset and behavior of a child.

I don't see how its mockery, it is magic, defined as:-

the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

(according to Google)

[kravarnik]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

It's no magic. Minds can cause stuff, get over it. Stop being an infantile and start dealing with these notions appropriately for a grown man who claims to be rational.

As you have noticed I didn't resort to mockery to deal with your issues that you raise. I don't understand why you do resort to this. I mean, just say you can't understand that, or something, but don't approach the whole matter with the mindset and behavior of a child.

I don't see how its mockery, it is magic, defined as:-

the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

(according to Google)

Well, first of all, the claim here is not "God did it mysteriously," the claim is "God did it through the force of His will," so the means are not "mysterious." Also, the claim isn't "it appears God did it in X way," the claim is "God did it in X way."


Anyhow, I think more fitting scenario for this "term" is a universe coming from nothing, which many atheists are currently forced to believe. This is the actual magic from me. As WLC said, at least in Divine creation, you have the magician performing the "magic," but in your case there's no magician, no magician set, it's just nothing and all of a sudden magic happens.


I'd find it more believable that there was a magician set, a magician and then a magic trick produced, than to believe "no magician set, no magician, but magic trick is produced!" The latter one is just sheer non-sense.

[Huskqa]

Well, intuition may be bad for doing cosmology, but currently we speak about philosophy and namely - metaphysics, - not cosmology. Cosmology deals with the singularity and the subsequent events to it, not with what was prior to it - these state of affairs are unobservable and inexaminable(is that a word? ) for cosmology.

Krauss gives an example where we don't know the reason, not where we have established that there's no reason. Also it's quite clear "atoms emitting electrons," means that atoms do something which has an effect(cause + effect), as opposed to "electrons come out of nowhere with no cause, for no reason." More than obviously they are emitted from atoms. Why they are emitted may be unknown for now, but they do come from somewhere and this somewhere isn't "nothing," but an empirical phenomena with properties and potential causation - atoms. If anything, this gives support that stuff do not come out of nothing, for no reason.

But this directly implies that, to the best of our knowledge, things do begin to exist without an efficient cause.

In this last point of yours, you're kinda drawing a false analogy:

A table by definition is something created from other pre-existing stuff. Or in more technical terms - a table by definition has a material cause as well as efficient cause.

Yes, so Kalam P1 should be, everything that begins to exist has en efficient cause and a material cause. This is what our experience is telling us. Quantum mechanics is telling us that a efficient cause might not be needed.

However, we have good reasons to think that the universe lacks material cause, because the only thing that contains material - the universe - and not only, but contains all the material we know and have experienced, has a beginning, which entails that this material hasn't existed into past infinity.

This is physics and cosmology, intuition is kind of out of the window. Why could the universe not be created out of some stuff that is not any off the stuff that is in our universe?

So, one may have good reasons to think a mind can be a cause to the universe. Namely, an all-powerful mind, who can create stuff brand new by the sheer force of His will without the need of a pre-existing material cause.

Well, that is kind of strange since our experience tells us that an efficient cause, at least inside the universe, does not cause anything without any source material. Second, we have never actually observed a mind.

[Huskqa]

Have you ever seen a carpenter create a table and not use any source material? Now imagine the carpenter as an unembodied mind creating a table out of no source material.....

But if the carpenter can do magic...

It's no magic. Minds can cause stuff, get over it. Stop being an infantile and start dealing with these notions appropriately for a grown man who claims to be rational.

Intuition and experience do not confirm this at all. Maybe you should support it with something.

[kravarnik]

But this directly implies that, to the best of our knowledge, things do begin to exist without an efficient cause.

In this last point of yours, you're kinda drawing a false analogy:

A table by definition is something created from other pre-existing stuff. Or in more technical terms - a table by definition has a material cause as well as efficient cause.

Yes, so Kalam P1 should be, everything that begins to exist has en efficient cause and a material cause. This is what our experience is telling us. Quantum mechanics is telling us that a efficient cause might not be needed.

However, we have good reasons to think that the universe lacks material cause, because the only thing that contains material - the universe - and not only, but contains all the material we know and have experienced, has a beginning, which entails that this material hasn't existed into past infinity.

This is physics and cosmology, intuition is kind of out of the window. Why could the universe not be created out of some stuff that is not any off the stuff that is in our universe?

So, one may have good reasons to think a mind can be a cause to the universe. Namely, an all-powerful mind, who can create stuff brand new by the sheer force of His will without the need of a pre-existing material cause.

Well, that is kind of strange since our experience tells us that an efficient cause, at least inside the universe, does not cause anything without any source material. Second, we have never actually observed a mind.

I don't believe it directly imples this.

- The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
- The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
- The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
- The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools. - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-causality/

The emmition comes out of an atom - material cause. The emmition is caused by the atom - efficient cause. We just don't know how IT'S CAUSED by the atom, but we can relate it being caused by the atom. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "atoms emitting electrons," but "nothing emitting electrons."

I may see a table shaped in such a way as I cannot understand how the carpenter really worked on it to produce the effect, but it doesn't mean there was no carpenter(efficient cause) who worked on the table.


And no, the Kalam does not have to claim this, due to the reasons I provided(which you later dubiously brush aside). It cannot have a material cause, because all the possible material causes we know of have a finite beginning, which we are trying to explain, or make sense of, here. To say it must have a material cause is begging the question in favor of materialism, without having no reason to think that material stuff existed prior to the beginning of all the material stuff(the universe). So, it looks like the following:

- all the existing material causes(the universe) we know of have a finite beginning ago

- we are trying to explain what could cause this beginning of the material(the universe)

- you go to say that, although all the material stuff we know of, that could be potential contender for a material cause, started to exist some finite time ago, they exist prior to them starting to exist

- essentially - all the material which began to exist, and didn't exist prior to that, which we try to explain, was caused by material


Whaat? How come, that which had a beginning finite time ago, existed prior to its beginning, to cause its beginning? You have no reason to posit a requirement that the universe MUST have a material cause. From what you observe in the universe, the best you can do is say that everything WITHIN the universe must have a material cause. You can't transfer that requirement to things outside the universe, because the universe contains all the possible material causes and they have a finite beginning which we are trying to explain here. So, you're simply assuming a multiverse or hypermatter without any actual reason for doing so. We have no observations on material stuff outside our universe, nor have any access to such state of affairs.


Physics is when you deal with empirical phenomena. We are talking about the empirical phenomena's cause, something which itself isn't empirically examinable currently. So, this is metaphysics, not physics. And cosmology(the scientific discipline) also operates upon empirical phenomena and we aren't discussing that, but what was prior to the beginning of all known empirical phenomena. I'll repeat - if you assume that there's more empirical phenomena, beyond the beginning of all known empirical phenomena, then you're simply assuming your conclusion - that the universe is caused by something material. But that should be reasoned to arriving at it, not merely asserting it as an asumption.



As to your last point - I'm sorry to hear that you don't act as what your mind dictates. Somehow, when my mind(in other words - I) want to go to the toilet, I go - it's weird like that. Jokes aside - fantasy, fiction, these are all things, produced by minds, which do not use any pre-existing empirical material. They aren't fed "fantasy atoms," to produce fantasy.

[Huskqa]

The emmition comes out of an atom - material cause. The emmition is caused by the atom - efficient cause. We just don't know how IT'S CAUSED by the atom, but we can relate it being caused by the atom. Otherwise, it wouldn't be called "atoms emitting electrons," but "nothing emitting electrons."

The is equal to saying: some piece of wood formed itself into a table (efficient cause=material cause). This might be true, but to the best of our knowledge it does not have an efficient cause. Maybe we will find some efficient cause in the future.

I may see a table shaped in such a way as I cannot understand how the carpenter really worked on it to produce the effect, but it doesn't mean there was no carpenter(efficient cause) who worked on the table.

Agreed, but at best we are left with a material efficient and material cause. If a physicist like dr Krauss tells us atoms emit photons (made a mistake, it is emitting a photon, not an electron) for no apparent reason, metaphysics should accept this and work with this.

And no, the Kalam does not have to claim this, due to the reasons I provided(which you later dubiously brush aside). It cannot have a material cause, because all the possible material causes we know of have a finite beginning, which we are trying to explain, or make sense of, here. To say it must have a material cause is begging the question in favor of materialism, without having no reason to think that material stuff existed prior to the beginning of all the material stuff(the universe). So, it looks like the following:

- all the existing material causes(the universe) we know of have a finite beginning ago

- we are trying to explain what could cause this beginning of the material(the universe)

- you go to say that, although all the material stuff we know of, that could be potential contender for a material cause, started to exist some finite time ago, they exist prior to them starting to exist

- essentially - all the material which began to exist, and didn't exist prior to that, which we try to explain, was caused by material

Well, than Kalam should be: everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause. But current quantum physics would say: that is false.

The same can be said for efficient cause....all finite in the past. If we are going to exclude material cases because we always observed them to be in time we must also do that for efficient causes.

Whaat? How come, that which had a beginning finite time ago, existed prior to its beginning, to cause its beginning?

That is not what I said.

You have no reason to posit a requirement that the universe MUST have a material cause. From what you observe in the universe, the best you can do is say that everything WITHIN the universe must have a material cause. You can't transfer that requirement to things outside the universe, because the universe contains all the possible material causes and they have a finite beginning which we are trying to explain here.

Well, no, I did not actually say that it must have a material cause (at least, that was not what I intended). I said that, if we use our experience of things coming in to existence in the universe we must say that they always have a material cause (and most of the time an efficient cause). If we are using our experience, we should be consistent.

So, you're simply assuming a multiverse or hypermatter without any actual reason for doing so. We have no observations on material stuff outside our universe, nor have any access to such state of affairs.

No, not assuming anything. It is the kalam argument that is cherrypicking our experience from within the universe to apply to the universe. If we reject material causes because of the fact that they are all temporal (or only existed a finite time) than we must reject efficient causes for the exact same reason.

Physics is when you deal with empirical phenomena. We are talking about the empirical phenomena's cause, something which itself isn't empirically examinable currently. So, this is metaphysics, not physics. And cosmology(the scientific discipline) also operates upon empirical phenomena and we aren't discussing that, but what was prior to the beginning of all known empirical phenomena. I'll repeat - if you assume that there's more empirical phenomena, beyond the beginning of all known empirical phenomena, then you're simply assuming your conclusion - that the universe is caused by something material. But that should be reasoned to arriving at it, not merely asserting it as an asumption.

Well, P1 of kalam is based on empirical experience from within the universe, if this is not to be used, P1 has no foundation. If we do use it, we must be consistent and state P1 correctly. So Either:

1. Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause and a material cause.

or:

2. Everything that begins to exist has a material cause (because of quantum mechanics).

As to your last point - I'm sorry to hear that you don't act as what your mind dictates. Somehow, when my mind(in other words - I) want to go to the toilet, I go - it's weird like that. Jokes aside - fantasy, fiction, these are all things, produced by minds, which do not use any pre-existing empirical material. They aren't fed "fantasy atoms," to produce fantasy.

Well, I am not sure if something as a mind exists separate from the brain. But for the argument it is not really relevant. Even If we would grant minds separate from matter they still only exist in our space time. And: if my mind would cause a table to exist, it would still need wood in order to do it.

[jakswan]

Well, first of all, the claim here is not "God did it mysteriously," the claim is "God did it through the force of His will," so the means are not "mysterious." Also, the claim isn't "it appears God did it in X way," the claim is "God did it in X way."

The definition was mysterious OR supernatural, do you want another go?

Anyhow, I think more fitting scenario for this "term" is a universe coming from nothing, which many atheists are currently forced to believe.

No, 'I don't know' is a reasonable position.

This is the actual magic from me. As WLC said, at least in Divine creation, you have the magician performing the "magic," but in your case there's no magician, no magician set, it's just nothing and all of a sudden magic happens.

I'd find it more believable that there was a magician set, a magician and then a magic trick produced, than to believe "no magician set, no magician, but magic trick is produced!" The latter one is just sheer non-sense.

Strawmen aside, at least in these few paragraphs you seem more comfortable with using the term magic in relation to god, which was the purpose of my contribution. 

[Huskqa]

So...Sean Carrol won by a land slide. Case closed.

[lucious]

Not at all.

Study the transcript as opposed to listening to the debate, and see most of Carrolls arguments are philosophical and are not very impressive once the confident delivery is taken away.

[Huskqa]

Not at all.

Study the transcript as opposed to listening to the debate, and see most of Carrolls arguments are philosophical and are not very impressive once the confident delivery is taken away.

So are Craigs arguments. Most of them ar Philosophical and most of them very bad. Atleast sean carrol is honest (he will admit if he does not know) and correct.

Kalam is just bending philosophy so it will fit his "truth" of the existence of a god.

[lucious]

The kalam is an argument; two premises and a conclusion.


Arguments do not "bend" philosophy, people may, but this does not affect the soundness of an argument.

Also, muttering "we dont know" over and over is not an argument, it is not a sign of humility. People doing this are really just hiding behind a veil of humility in order to spit up anything inconsistent with their worldview. What they mean  by "we don't know" is usually really only saying "I don't like that answer, so I'm going to brush it aside without justification and wait for an answer consistent with my preconceived worldview."

[Huskqa]

Arguments do not "bend" philosophy, people may, but this does not affect the soundness of an argument.

The argument is constructed in such a way that it allows us to cherrypick from our experiances without it being very obvious. The argument allows for efficient causes without material causes....It is constructed to be misleading.

Metaphysics should follow the physics. If physics tells us some things start te exist without a cause, we are kind of stuck with that. Instead of acknowledging that the typical theologian ignores it and reasons to his 2000 year old conclusion.

Also, muttering "we dont know" over and over is not an argument, it is not a sign of humility. People doing this are really just hiding behind a veil of humility in order to spit up anything inconsistent with their worldview. What they mean  by "we don't know" is usually really only saying "I don't like that answer, so I'm going to brush it aside without justification and wait for an answer consistent with my preconceived worldview."

No it is not. Maybe you should answer the question: why does a atom emit a foton at this instance in time. The answer is short an simple....we do not know. It is atheism of the gaps, I understand, but we try to close the gaps through learning, not with god.

[lucious]

Naturalized metaphysics must be argued for, not just blithely asserted.

Also, even asking that question presumes some sort of metaphysical analysis of causation. What does one mean by cause? This requires a metaphysics before one dismisses metaphysics.

Physics does not tell us anything. Physicists do.

[Architecto]

Minds can cause stuff

MATERIAL minds can cause stuff. Namely, cause material to move. The MATERIAL neurons, chemicals, etc. in my brain interact with the MATERIAL parts of my body, which in turn interact with the MATERIAL world.

You are talking about an IMMATERIAL mind creating, from nothing, MATERIAL.

That sounds like magic to me. Sue me for being frank, but it's how I'm calling it.