Has Anyone Noticed Neopolitan's "Craig's Top Errors"?

[Lion IRC]

...Why do you think everything that came into existence has a cause? Based upon what evidence?

Because a non-existent 'thing' bringing itself into existence doesn't parse.

Except for God, quantum fluctuations, and the universe apparently. That is - everything.

God?  Who here told you God came into existence?
LOL

[Lion IRC]

...Can a light switch turn itself on? If so, does it 'decide' when to do so?

Yes, of course - you just need a timer or suchlike.

A timer?
That's programmed - designed - to make the light come on at a determined time. Neither the timer nor the light decide when the light comes on.
You really miss the mark with the timer analogy.

[Emuse]

The billiard ball and light analogies nicely highlight the problem.

Let's say you are playing billiards and you strike the ball towards one of the pockets when suddenly it changes direction for no known reason.  In this context "no known reason" simply means that the ball shouldn't have changed direction given the antecedent  physical circumstances under which it was sent toward the pocket.

Now either it changed direction for no reason at all, or for some unknown physical reason or it was caused to change direction by a powerful, invisible and non physical entity such as God.  Assuming we can rule out an unknown physical reason, it either changed direction for no reason at all or it was caused to change direction by an invisible and non physical entity.  But what we do discover through this is that the latter two instances are empirically indistinguishable so going for the latter option if you did witness such a thing would purely be a matter of personal preference based somewhat on personal incredulity.  I understand this to roughly be the point that Igr Bunyip is making and if so, I fully agree with him on this.

But this exposes further problems.  The ball heading toward the pocket is an example of event causation.  Sending the ball toward the pocket only changes the state of some already existing things.  Nothing is brought into existence.  P1 of Kalam only makes a claim about things which begin to exist and makes no claims about changes of state in already existing things.  So the ball changing direction for no reason at all could still occur in a world where P1 of Kalam is a necessary truth! 

[Emuse]

There will NEVER be a unified theory of everything if your magic mushroom woo about stuff unpredictably popping into and out of existence were true.

Stuff unpredictably popping into existence out of nothing is exactly the type of observation we can't rule out if there exists an invisible being who can create physical objects ex nihilo and sometimes, for reasons that we don't fully understand (and therefore, can't always predict).   The prior probability of a horse suddenly appearing in front of you for no apparent reason is only zero if there doesn't exist a supernatural being who could perform such a feat.

Think before you mock.

[Lion IRC]

The billiard ball and light analogies nicely highlight the problem.

Let's say you are playing billiards and you strike the ball towards one of the pockets when suddenly it changes direction for no known reason.  In this context "no known reason" simply means that the ball shouldn't have changed direction given the antecedent  physical circumstances under which it was sent toward the pocket.

Now either it changed direction for no reason at all, or for some unknown physical reason or it was caused to change direction by a powerful, invisible and non physical entity such as God.  Assuming we can rule out an unknown physical reason, it either changed direction for no reason at all or it was caused to change direction by an invisible and non physical entity.  But what we do discover through this is that the latter two instances are empirically indistinguishable so going for the latter option if you did witness such a thing would purely be a matter of personal preference based somewhat on personal incredulity.  I understand this to roughly be the point that Igr is making and if so, I fully agree with him on this.

But this exposes further problems.  The ball heading toward the pocket is an example of event causation.  Sending the ball toward the pocket only changes the state of some already existing things.  Nothing is brought into existence.  P1 of Kalam only makes a claim about things which begin to exist and makes no claims about changes of state in already existing things.  So the ball changing direction for no reason at all could still occur in a world where P1 of Kalam is a necessary truth!

You're just substituting the universe for a billiard ball if you claim one or the other didn't come into existence.

There will NEVER be a unified theory of everything if your magic mushroom woo about stuff unpredictably popping into and out of existence were true.

Stuff unpredictably popping into existence out of nothing is exactly the type of observation we can't rule out if there exists an invisible being who can create physical objects ex nihilo and sometimes, for reasons that we don't fully understand (and therefore, can't always predict).   The prior probability of a horse suddenly appearing in front of you for no apparent reason is only zero if there doesn't exist a supernatural being who could perform such a feat.

Think before you mock.

Oh well, if you're willing to concede that 'magical' uncaused, spontaneous universes which just appear out of nowhere is not much different to Genesis, then I think we are really making progress.

[kurros]

But this exposes further problems.  The ball heading toward the pocket is an example of event causation.  Sending the ball toward the pocket only changes the state of some already existing things.  Nothing is brought into existence.  P1 of Kalam only makes a claim about things which begin to exist and makes no claims about changes of state in already existing things.  So the ball changing direction for no reason at all could still occur in a world where P1 of Kalam is a necessary truth!

"Existing" is kind of a tricky thing in physics. The ball suddenly heading towards the pocket "brings into existence" new momentum! And possibly energy as well. If you want to say that the momentum is just a property of the ball which has changed, well, the ball is just a collection of excitations of quantum fields, so is itself simply a "rearrangement" of those quantum fields. If you insist on something like this then we have never observed a single thing being created! We have only ever observed changes of state.

[Emuse]

You're just substituting the universe for a billiard ball if you claim one or the other didn't come into existence.

This is not what I said.  The ball changing state (going from being on the table to being in the pocket via rolling as a result of being hit) is an example of something changing state (eg, changing position) or event causation.  Nothing is brought into existence under that set of circumstances.  So P1 of Kalam being true still doesn't rule out these types of things happening uncaused.  P1 of Kalam only deals with states of affairs where things begin to exist.

Oh well, if you're willing to concede that 'magical' uncaused, spontaneous universes which just appear out of nowhere is not much different to Genesis, then I think we are really making progress.

I'm saying that creation of universes ex nihilo by a supernatural and non empirical agent and universes appearing for no reason at all are necessarily empirically indistinguishable.   If a person doesn't find uncaused beginnings implausible then they can always appeal to Occam's Razor.  This will make appeal to the latter (supernatural causation) a matter of preference fuelled largely by personal credulity or incredulity if it based on this issue alone (which I don't think it is really).  It won't have a strong rational warrant (I would say that appeal to Occam's Razor is relatively weak, but better than none at all).

[Emuse]

But this exposes further problems.  The ball heading toward the pocket is an example of event causation.  Sending the ball toward the pocket only changes the state of some already existing things.  Nothing is brought into existence.  P1 of Kalam only makes a claim about things which begin to exist and makes no claims about changes of state in already existing things.  So the ball changing direction for no reason at all could still occur in a world where P1 of Kalam is a necessary truth!

"Existing" is kind of a tricky thing in physics. The ball suddenly heading towards the pocket "brings into existence" new momentum! And possibly energy as well. If you want to say that the momentum is just a property of the ball which has changed, well, the ball is just a collection of excitations of quantum fields, so is itself simply a "rearrangement" of those quantum fields. If you insist on something like this then we have never observed a single thing being created! We have only ever observed changes of state.

Bingo! 

IOW, appeals to what we find plausible based on our regular observation of events at the classical level is problematic.  But this is largely how the premises of WLC's argument are defended (for apologetic reasons, in order to break down the barriers to belief).

[neopolitan]

Neo, you're right. I didn't read them. I listened to them - can't drive and read at the same time.
And my quick impressions posted under each link are a summary of my initial response.
I think you're on very shaky ground - do you always lead with your chin when boxing?

I don't want to bob and weave or skirmish back and forth from one random point to the next ranging over all the blog articles simultaneously.

I'd rather start with one and do it to death. Then, move on to the next.

What you call "leading with your chin", I call standing up for what I say, even if you think I am on shaky ground.

I'd appreciate a discussion that doesn't involve "bobbing and weaving" or "wriggling".

Let's start with the logic of an apologist.  Pick something in there and let's get started.  Note that we aren't doing them all to avoid ranging too much, so try not to range too much in your response.  There are 8 arguments and an intro and an a conclusion that we can divide up a little.

[Lion IRC]

But this exposes further problems.  The ball heading toward the pocket is an example of event causation.  Sending the ball toward the pocket only changes the state of some already existing things.  Nothing is brought into existence.  P1 of Kalam only makes a claim about things which begin to exist and makes no claims about changes of state in already existing things.  So the ball changing direction for no reason at all could still occur in a world where P1 of Kalam is a necessary truth!

"Existing" is kind of a tricky thing in physics. The ball suddenly heading towards the pocket "brings into existence" new momentum! And possibly energy as well. If you want to say that the momentum is just a property of the ball which has changed, well, the ball is just a collection of excitations of quantum fields, so is itself simply a "rearrangement" of those quantum fields. If you insist on something like this then we have never observed a single thing being created! We have only ever observed changes of state.

Bingo! 

IOW, appeals to what we find plausible based on our regular observation of events at the classical level is problematic.

Kurros/Emuse,
How do you account for the fact that billiard balls actually DO come to a complete stop and change direction unpredictably in the real world? My world.

...I put down my glass of wine, reach over across the billiard table and pick up the ball then roll it back to where it started. I am literally exercising mind-over-matter and the laws of physics can't predict when/if I will do this.

[Emuse]

Kurros/Emuse,
How do you account for the fact that billiard balls actually DO come to a complete stop and change direction unpredictably in the real world? My world.

...I put down my glass of wine, reach over across the billiard table and pick up the ball then roll it back to where it started. I am literally exercising mind-over-matter and the laws of physics can't predict when/if I will do this.

These types of arguments always come close (if not committing) an argument from ignorance fallacy.  IOW, "If you can't explain how that happens naturalistically then the supernatural answer must be true!"  There is nothing wrong with "We don't know".  We don't have a complete theory of everything so can't predict everything.  In some cases, we simply don't know everything about the antecedent circumstances prior to an event.  This doesn't address what we can reliably predict though.

What are you actually arguing toward here?  A few moments ago, it was suggested that it is ridiculous to think that a ball would change direction for no apparent reason.  Now you're suggesting they do?  When?  I'm a little puzzled as to what direction you're going in with your argument.

[Lion IRC]

Kurros/Emuse,
How do you account for the fact that billiard balls actually DO come to a complete stop and change direction unpredictably in the real world? My world.

...I put down my glass of wine, reach over across the billiard table and pick up the ball then roll it back to where it started. I am literally exercising mind-over-matter and the laws of physics can't predict when/if I will do this.

These types of arguments always come close (if not committing) an argument from ignorance fallacy.  IOW, "If you can't explain how that happens naturalistically then the supernatural answer must be true!"

But I didn't say THAT did I?
So look at me when you're talking to me please and if you can't answer, don't rope in a strawman or a tin man and lecture them about fallacy types.

You are only being asked to explain something because you contest my explanation - the soul / free will.

 

...A few moments ago, it was suggested that it is ridiculous to think that a ball would change direction for no apparent reason.

Go back and read it again. It would only be a problem for non-theism/determinism - not me.
I assert that God actually DOES cause creation Ex Nihilo.
I assert that mind-over-matter is a perfect explanation for how billiard balls can unpredictably change direction.

[Emuse]

But I didn't say THAT did I?

I'm trying to clarify what you are arguing towards.

Just to recap, we were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical outcomes and how they can't be ruled out under theism if a supernatural entity exists who can create ex nihilo.  I argued that something coming into existence for no reason at all and something coming into existence by creation ex nihilo by a non empirical entity for reasons we don't understand are both empirically indistinguishable.  Assuming P1 of Kalam to be true does allow us to rule uncaused beginnings to existence (even in cases where something suddenly appears) but we wouldn't be able to empirically verify that P1 of Kalam is true in this context.  We were also discussing how unpredictable events that are also effects are not required to have causes under what is stipulated by P1 of Kalam but more on that in a bit.

You now appear to be changing the topic to free will for some reason?  Why?  We were discussing Kalam and the problems with it.  Kalam says nothing about free will in any of its premises.

So look at me when you're talking to me please and if you can't answer, don't rope in a strawman or a tin man and lecture them about fallacy types.

Where on earth did this come from?  Why the sudden attitude Lion?

You are only being asked to explain something because you contest my explanation - the soul / free will.

We weren't discussing free will.  We were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical occurrences.  I therefore haven't contested anything in that area in the context of this discussion.
 

I assert that mind-over-matter is a perfect explanation for how billiard balls can unpredictably change direction.

We were discussing what we should expect of ball behaviour when the ball is not being acted upon (as far as we know).  So if a ball is stationary in the middle of a table and nothing acts upon it (there are no earthquakes expected, I'm not going to touch it etc) then we should expect it to stay right where it is.  Yes?

If there exists supernatural non-empirical entities who could move it for reasons unknown to us then we can't say that it won't move for apparently no reason.  If there can be uncaused changes of state then we can't say that it won't move for apparently no reason.  If something like that did occur (the ball moved for apparently no reason) then we would not be able to empirically verify what had happened (supernatural non empirical causation v. no cause at all) and Kalam doesn't allow us to rule out either because the ball suddenly moving for apparently no reason doesn't bring anything into existence.

If there is a zero probability that it will move for apparently no reason then it is necessary that it behaves in the way it is and under those physical circumstances.  But in that case, a miracle working being most certainly doesn't exist.

[Lion IRC]

Neo, you're right. I didn't read them. I listened to them - can't drive and read at the same time.
And my quick impressions posted under each link are a summary of my initial response.
I think you're on very shaky ground - do you always lead with your chin when boxing?

I don't want to bob and weave or skirmish back and forth from one random point to the next ranging over all the blog articles simultaneously.

I'd rather start with one and do it to death. Then, move on to the next.

What you call "leading with your chin", I call standing up for what I say, even if you think I am on shaky ground.

I'd appreciate a discussion that doesn't involve "bobbing and weaving" or "wriggling".

Let's start with the logic of an apologist.  Pick something in there and let's get started.  Note that we aren't doing them all to avoid ranging too much, so try not to range too much in your response.  There are 8 arguments and an intro and an a conclusion that we can divide up a little.

OK.

You take issue with his framing of syllogisms including the moral argument and the (bethinking.org cited) argument from absurdity. BTW the link is broken.

You claimed in relation to the moral argument that "...Craig's framing of the argument this way has the reader feeling that it's wrong somehow, but unsure of how, where or why. The fact is, the argument is a null argument for God..."

I dispute both of your assertions.
1. How can you lay claim to speak for how it leaves readers feeling? I don't feel that way.
2. The conclusion of the argument posits..."therefore, God exists." It is entirely an argument for God.

[Lion IRC]

But I didn't say THAT did I?

I'm trying to clarify what you are arguing towards.

Just to recap, we were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical outcomes and how they can't be ruled out under theism if a supernatural entity exists who can create ex nihilo.  I argued that something coming into existence for no reason at all and something coming into existence by creation ex nihilo by a non empirical entity for reasons we don't understand are both empirically indistinguishable.  We were also discussing how unpredictable events that are also effects are not required to have causes under what is stipulated by P1 of Kalam (because it doesn't cover events where things don't begin to exist).

You now appear to be changing the topic to free will for some reason?  Why?  We were discussing Kalam and the problems with it.  Kalam says nothing about free will in any of its premises.

Free will is the sole distinguishing factor between the deliberate/intentional cause of something and something being purely, absolutely spontaneous.

You don't get to ring-fence the implications of the KCA. Nice try.

And please note that whereas I certainly welcome your joining in the convo, I was actually talking with Bunyip - who asked me to elaborate on the matter of things happening either with or without cause.

So look at me when you're talking to me please and if you can't answer, don't rope in a strawman or a tin man and lecture them about fallacy types.

Where on earth did this come from?  Why the sudden attitude Lion?

That's not sudden. LOL.
I was born this way.
Seriously, I do respect and enjoy your contributions. Nothing personal. Please don't take offence.
And if I actually do drop some logical fallacy, then absolutely call me out.
...but use the quote function and make sure there's no doubt who you are referring to.

You are only being asked to explain something because you contest my explanation - the soul / free will.

We weren't discussing free will.  We were discussing causation in relation to unpredictable physical occurrences.  I therefore haven't contested anything in that area in the context of this discussion.

We were discussing free will. You were saying free will is irrelevant and I was saying it is relevant. And Bunyip started it because he contended that things can happen without the presence of volition.

My point was...that it's no fallacy of ignorance to ask for an explanation from the person who has just dismissed your explanation.

I say God dunnit.
Skeptic says no He didn't.
I ask ...well who/what did?
And skeptic says...why do I have to have an answer? Youre committing a logical fallacy by asking me that Lion IRC