A Challenge Answered...Sort Of

Back in mid 2009 I wrote out a formal challenge to anyone who would care to argue against the many facts and evidence I’ve written about on my blog dealing with religion, god, anarchism, the supernatural, etc. Very few have taken up my challenge, and I believe firmly that all have failed. A blogger at Brennon’s Thoughts has sort of answered the challenge. He failed to present any evidence for his claims and failed to present any evidence against mine. Even more, I believe he resorted to a strawman when dealing with the scientific evidence against William Lane Craig’s claim that all things need a cause.

And like most theists I’ve run across, he resorts to ridicule without citing a single shred of evidence for his position.

Right out of the gate I don’t feel he has answered any of my arguments, but we’ll see if further dialogue will put his supposed arguments out in the open, if he responds at all.

Here were his comments with my response following that I’ve posted in the comments section of the challenge and on his own blog.

AA,

I'd be happy to take up the challenge.

Let's see.

From what I've read, what you've written interacting with scholars such as Bill Craig has been spotty. You've offered meager responses to his work and have ignored the vast amount of material he's written to deal with the very objections you've put up.

For instance, in dealing with his cosmological argument, you've written, to dispute the first premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause, "According to modern physics, however things can seemingly happen without cause. There are several things we observe that appear to have no cause."

This is just ignorant. You would seemingly claim that things, in this case, can come into existence uncaused out of nothing and that quantum physics has corroborated this. But this isn't the case at all. For starters, the quantum vacuum where these particles seemingly pop into existence is not nothing. This quantum vacuum is demonstrably not nothing. As Craig writes, "a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. Popular presentations of these models often do not explain that they require a specially fine-tuned, background space-time on the analogy of a quantum mechanical vacuum. The origin of the observable universe from this wider space-time is not a free lunch at all. It requires an elaborately set table, which must be paid for," and, "a quantum vacuum...is a rich physical reality possessing physical properties: it is not creation from nothing."

That's not to mention the sketchy waters we get into with quantum vacuum models, since there are several that take the same data those who present this indeterministic model and develop deterministic models.

That's just one instance.

To respond to your questions here:

I welcome one and all to attempt to refute any argument I place on my blog

Ok. Please point me to one of your arguments for atheism. A refutation of an argument, which I've seen you have attempted quite a few of, is not an argument for your position. Could you give me a good positive argument that there is no God?

Do you think you can prove the existence of the supernatural

It depends on what you mean by "prove." This word has become very vague since the epistemic systems like verificationism and logical positivism were introduced. It is near impossible to prove 100% much of anything. Can you prove to me that you're not a brain in a vat being stimulated to sense the external world? What kind of evidence could you give for that?

Now, I could give you some good reasons to think that there is a realm of supernatural activity, some would be philosophical arguments such as the cosmological or moral arguments. I could give you good reasons to think that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.

can you prove that atheism caused the atrocities by the communists

That's for historians to decide, I suppose. From my reading, most communists were atheists and their philosophical worldviews did lead them to do things those who look to a higher moral authority might not have otherwise done, but the question is ultimately uninteresting when it comes to the question of whether or not God exists.

do you think you can prove any god exists (the one exception being a Deistic god)

Again, depends on what you have in mind when you say "prove." Can you prove God doesn't exist?

**By "evidence" I mean factual, scientific proof

What do you mean by factual and scientific? I think there are truths that are untouchable by the scientific method that we can know to be true. Do you mean empirical evidence? How do you know empirical evidence is a good means of discovering truth? Empirical evidence is useless unless it is examined and interpreted. This seems like deck stacking, and it's not fair in a debate to set the boundaries to your presupposed epistemology.

I'll check back here to see if you've responded. Do you want to perform this debate in this combox? One of my comboxes? Between blogs?

My response:

bossmanham,

Thank you for your comments, though it’s obvious you erected a strawman because regarding Craig’s first premise, that of everything needing a cause, I presented scientific evidence that this is not so. You attempt to counter this by going around my argument and claim that I’m arguing “ that things, in this case, can come into existence uncaused out of nothing and that quantum physics has corroborated this.” No, I’m only countering his first premise - that all things must have a cause for their existence and as I show this isn’t the case. After all, I was deputing Craig’s claim about causation, not existence.

“Now, I could give you some good reasons to think that there is a realm of supernatural activity, some would be philosophical arguments such as the cosmological or moral arguments. I could give you good reasons to think that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event.”

I’ve already dealt with most of the common arguments in favor of the supernatural in the link above about the supernatural.

“That's for historians to decide, I suppose. From my reading, most communists were atheists and their philosophical worldviews did lead them to do things those who look to a higher moral authority might not have otherwise done, but the question is ultimately uninteresting when it comes to the question of whether or not God exists.”

The Communists did things that “those who look to a higher moral authority might not have otherwise done” is so historically inaccurate I’m shocked you wrote this sentence. The history of religion is covered with individuals and groups whose beliefs either inspired them or were used to justify horrible atrocities.

“Again, depends on what you have in mind when you say "prove." Can you prove God doesn't exist?”

There are degrees of truth and probability and the question of god, at least at this point in time, seems to be pretty much settled, unless more evidence turns up in the future. Though the fact that theists must still resort to hundreds of years old recycled theology I don’t see this happening. But the fact that naturalistic explanations do such a great job at explaining and deciphering the world (and are often verified by further observations and experiments) it’s more than likely that the supernatural is a figment of peoples’ imaginations, which would include god. This is not some conclusion that was developed because of some philosophical bias but because of the mere lack of evidence. See this discussion I had a while back. If god did exist, there would be some evidence of him since he is said to work within the world. Prayers would be answered (and I’m not talking about confirmation bias), among other things.

“What do you mean by factual and scientific? I think there are truths that are untouchable by the scientific method that we can know to be true. Do you mean empirical evidence? How do you know empirical evidence is a good means of discovering truth? Empirical evidence is useless unless it is examined and interpreted. This seems like deck stacking, and it's not fair in a debate to set the boundaries to your presupposed epistemology.”

Deck stacking? Not at all. If someone comes to me and argues that prayer healed their cancer I’m going to want some evidence of this. I’m going to want a double blind study showing that prayer did something - something more than what a simple placebo already does in medical trials.

By evidence, as I said, I mean something that has been studied over a decent period of time, and has multiple double blind studies (when possible) confirming the original conclusion. And this is just one example. How do I know this method is good at discovering truth? Well, your computer works doesn’t it? Scientists are able to successfully predict things using this method, and it’s increased the human life span! I’d say these few things are proof positive that the scientific method works rather well. If science wasn’t discovering the truth (or at the very least peeling back layer upon layer and therefore getting closer to truth) these things would not work and their predictions would fail.

You failed to present a single argument in favor of your positions and you neglected to deal up front with the fact that things can happen without cause, which destroys Craig’s entire premise as I’ve explained.

Thanks.

*I’ve posted this response at your blog as well.

Update

The author has answered me at his blog here. My responses will follow his arguments.

Thanks for the response, AA.

Thank you for your comments, though it’s obvious you erected a strawman because regarding Craig’s first premise, that of everything needing a cause, I presented scientific evidence that this is not so.

I'm not sure how that would be a straw man exactly, even if that were true. However, you have incorrectly cited the first premise of the Kalaam argument. The first premise is "anything that begins to exist has a cause." As Craig says, this is far more plausible than it's negation (which would be everything that begins to exist does not have a cause). It seems like a metaphysical given that this would be true. Nothing in our experience that begins to exist, whether an event or an object, comes into existence uncaused out of nothing.

It is a strawman because I was discussing a different issue, not a quantum vacuum and the supposed creation of the universe. I cited the fact that "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event” as one example of events happening that have no cause.

You say you have provided evidence for that, but I said, and quoted Craig to the effect, that you are simply incorrect about that. I will elucidate with two points.

1) Wholly separate from the fact that it is disputed as to whether these virtual particles actually do exist, there are many physicists that don't agree that they are uncaused. The model that paints them as uncaused is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. Many of these physicists are exploring the completely deterministic models proffered by people like David Bohm. Actually, most of the models of quantum physics are deterministic in this way.

2) As I already stated and quoted Craig to show that he has already dealt with the objection, the models are not an exception to that premise. The quantum vacuum is demonstrably not nothing. As Craig and James D. Sinclair write, "Even on the indeterministic interpretation, particles do not come into being out of nothing. They arise as spontaneous fluctuations of the energy contained in the subatomic vacuum. Popularizers touting such theories as getting 'something from nothing' apparently do not understand that the vacuum is not nothing but is a sea of fluctuating energy endowed with a rich structure and subject to physical laws. Such models do not, therefore, involve a true origin ex nihilo" (From Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, ed. JP Moreland and William Lane craig, p. 183).

Again, I’m not discussing how the universe itself came to be but how certain events, such as with the decay of a radioactive nucleus can seemingly happen without cause. The Bohm interpretation is not a very widely accepted theory [1] and even this interpretation says nothing about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. These things are still happening unpredictably, seemingly at random, and seemingly without cause. There may be some dispute, but it’s still an issue that has yet to be resolved. You can’t simply dismiss it because others disagree. Until more knowledge is gained it’s still a viable interpretation.

So, quantum physics is not as cut and dry as you are painting it and even if it were, virtual particles in the quantum vacuum are not a case of coming into being uncaused out of nothing.

I never said it was that simple. The very fact that scientists are still learning and are unsure about certain aspects of the world - particularly the quantum - and the fact there are disagreements between scientists, it shows that theists can’t claim victory in arguing that this or that has a definite cause (of course neither can an atheist) but it just goes to show that things aren’t as simple as people like Craig make it out to be (that all things need a cause). Even if it did that is still no proof that a god is the cause. That’s just bad logic.

I’ve already dealt with most of the common arguments in favor of the supernatural in the link above about the supernatural.

I haven't seen much of anything substantive from you. Let's start with the moral argument.

1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values exist.
By modus tollens we get:
3) God exists.

Which premise do you disagree with?

More unsubstantiated claims and disrespectful behavior; why not answer my arguments? There is no such thing as objective morality anyway, as I briefly discussed in the piece in question.

The Communists did things that “those who look to a higher moral authority might not have otherwise done” is so historically inaccurate I’m shocked you wrote this sentence.

The communists wordview provides them with justified reasons to commit the atrocities they did. Either social darwinism or complete moral relativism, either way they have a reason according to their worldview. Christians who have committed atrocities (which, by numbers, were a drop in the bucket compared to atheist atrocities, not that that justifies it) are going against their worldview and thus being incosistent. Atheists are being consistent.

Atheism isn’t a “worldview”. It is one aspect of a particular worldview and such a worldview can certainly have moral rules attached to it. There are many secular moral systems that an atheists can make use of. See here.

There are degrees of truth and probability and the question of god, at least at this point in time,

No there aren't degrees of truth. Something can't be 95% true or pretty true. Something is either true or not.

There are probabilities that one can assign to something to attain its truth or falsity, even if we don’t know for sure. I was also referencing the limits of human knowledge. We may learn certain things and we may not, but again, we can determine the most probable answer.

Though the fact that theists must still resort to hundreds of years old recycled theology I don’t see this happening.

If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, there's no reason to change theology.

And how do you know this?

the fact that naturalistic explanations do such a great job at explaining and deciphering the world (and are often verified by further observations and experiments) it’s more than likely that the supernatural is a figment of peoples’ imaginations, which would include god.

1) You're assuming that naturalistic explanations DO a great job of explaining all of reality. That isn't the case at all. Just a few examples, naturalism fails to provide an adequate explanation for acts of knowing. It also fails to give an adequate grounds for the necessary conditions for scientific realism, which seems to be your view of science. How do we know that our cognative abilities furnish us with true conclusions. Things working out doesn't mean something is true.

2) A lack of evidence for God says nothing about whether God exists or not, assuming there is a lack of evidence, which there isn't. A lack of evidence could only justifiably lead one to a condition of agnosticism, not atheism.

How am I assuming? The fact that, as I said, science makes successful predictions and creates workable machines, medicines, etc. is proof that science is on the right track. If it weren’t true, it wouldn’t work! Furthermore, the lack of evidence for the supernatural, which you have still not addressed, is evidence that the naturalistic explanations are the right ones.

If someone comes to me and argues that prayer healed their cancer I’m going to want some evidence of this.

Isn't their tesimony some evidence? Sure, I'd like maybe a doctor's report that they did have cancer to begin with too, but the testimony itself is evidence. Not to mention that evidence can be misinterpreted. Empiricism is not a fool proof means of aquiring truth.

I didn’t say it was fool proof, but it certainly is more reliable than mere human testimony. Take the example of a court room. How many people have been put on death row for murder based upon eye witness testimony? An estimated 1 in 20 people on death row are found to be innocent. [2] Clearly, testimony isn’t as effective as you believe. Not to mention the fact that memory is not the highly effective data retrieval system many make it out to be. [3]

I’m going to want a double blind study showing that prayer did something

What in your worldview grounds the notion that these types of studies are good ways of aquiring truth?

What in my worldview? It has nothing to do with worldviews, but the simple fact that the more variables you control the more likely you’re going to get more accurate results.

You failed to present a single argument in favor of your positions and you neglected to deal up front with the fact that things can happen without cause, which destroys Craig’s entire premise as I’ve explained.

Actually, that's not true. Simply arrogantly stating so doesn't make it true. The record here shows I have refuted your claim that indeterministic quantum vacuum models give an example of something coming into existence uncaused, which means the Kalaam argument still stands, and I offerd the moral argument as well.

Let the record also show that I asked you for an argument for atheism, which you have not given. Give me a reason to think that God does not exist. Until you can truly tear down the theistic arguments and provide arguments of your own, I think your hubris is unfounded.

I’m not arrogantly stating anything. I cited the examples in my post, but you ignored them. Again, I also was not discussing the universe itself but atoms and radioactive processes. But if you want to talk about the universe, the universe could be eternal, destroying the theists’ reliability on god. But as I said before, it’s illogical to posit god as the ultimate cause when 1. there is no direct evidence of god and 2. how does one go about proving their particular god created the universe? The naturalistic scenarios are the most likely since that’s all that has been observed are natural processes to begin with.

I don’t see why theists are always asking for an “argument for atheism.” The very lack of evidence of a god is evidence for atheism’s truth.

The record actually shows that my argument about causes was still not answered and I have torn down the arguments for god. Things can happen without cause; the supernatural has yet to be proven; the universe could be eternal thus casting god aside; and design has been a horribly faulty premise as has been exposed the last several years. I also cannot believe you accused me of “hubris” since you’re the one saying I’m ignorant and arrogant when you’ve failed to even address what I’ve said to begin with about causes. Again, I’m not discussing the universe and vacuums. Later on, I do cite Stenger discussing vacuums and the origin of the universe, but that was simply his theory about a naturalistic way the universe came to be, not whether or not it was caused. That’s a separate issue so I would definitely call it a strawman.

Thanks.


1. God: The Failed Hypothesis, Stegner; 124
2. A Question of Innocence ; accessed 7-28-10
3. Memory Distortion: How Minds, Brains, and Societies Reconstruct the Past; there are many examples of a person’s memory being completely accurate and the very way our brains create memories can create problems.

Update - 7-29-10

I cited the fact that "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event” as one example of events happening that have no cause.

Um, you cite the cause of that event right there. We may not know why it happens, but we know the cause, namely the energy level dropping. That is the cause, and it doesn't happen out of nothing, since there is the existing atom and physical universe in which this happens.

Hmm... how did I mention the cause when I didn’t? Even that quote, which I got from Stenger, says the cause is unknown. You’ve failed to answer this argument about causes.

Again, I’m not discussing how the universe itself came to be but how certain events, such as with the decay of a radioactive nucleus can seemingly happen without cause.

But we know the causes of these things. Plus, nothing is coming into existence out of nothing here, so this isn't a counterexample.

Again, you seem to be confusing two separate subjects: that of events that have no cause and the argument that things can or can’t come from nothing. You’ve failed to answer my objection about causes, and when I cited Stenger about his natural scenario for the origin of the universe that takes into account an eternal universe that had nothing to do about things coming from nothing. Neither argument has anything to do with things coming from nothing which is why I feel you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of the arguments I made.

The subject isn’t “something from nothing” but refuting Craig’s argument that all things (except god according to Craig) need a cause.

The Bohm interpretation is not a very widely accepted theory

So what? The Copenhagen theory is the most widely accepted, but there are more that are deterministic than not. Such is the state of quantum physics.

My point was simply that you argued that the Bohm interpretation contradicted the standard one and I mentioned how it wasn’t very well accepted, so you’re arguing from a theory that doesn’t seem very valid. Though you’re right, things could change in the future.

You can’t simply dismiss it because others disagree.

I didn't dismiss it, and in fact gave a reason why even that interpretation wouldn't affect the Kalaam argument.

This goes back to your misunderstanding about “something from nothing.” With Craig’s Cosmological Argument from Contingency, which is where I made that argument, I was not discussing “something from nothing” or what have you, but the fact that there are events that do not have a cause. Now, with Craig’s Kalam argument, I did mention the previous argument briefly, since it’s essentially the same as the first. However, as I said in my post, the argument that only things that begin need a cause is foolish because Craig is only relying on logic, which as I show in my paper is not always reliable and this is where science can lend a hand in figuring out the truth. Craig cites no factual argument in support of his case and I also show why his scientific argument he uses is also flawed.

it shows that theists can’t claim victory in arguing that this or that has a definite cause

Until there's an actual example of an uncaused thing coming into being out of nothing, the burden of proof is on the person who thinks it's possible for this to happen. If it is possible, then I don't see why anything and everything doesn't happen this way.

The point is that no one knows for sure about this yet and we’ll just have to wait for further discoveries.

Even if it did that is still no proof that a god is the cause. That’s just bad logic.

According to the logic of the Kalaam argument, it would have to ba an immaterial cause, because it brought into existence all matter. It would also have to be personal, since the only immaterial thing that is able to cause something would be a mind, as abstract objects are causally effete.

Like I said, it’s bad logic. The argument is built around the theists’ desire - just as I said in my paper on Craig’s arguments - for his/her god to have been the one to do the creating, but why coudn’t it have been some other being? Why not an impersonal force? This is never explained. Why not a material cause? This is never explained.

More unsubstantiated claims and disrespectful behavior

Where's the disrespectful behavior? I presented a logically valid argument and asked you which premise you disagreed with. How is that disrespectful? You're the one who claims that these arguments are bad. Why?

In your very first post to me you called me ignorant, when it was you who misunderstood the argument to begin with as I’ve gone over several times throughout our discussion. Then you accuse me of rude behavior when all I did was call you out on your unnecessary name calling. You also made statements that I took offense to, such as, “I haven't seen much of anything substantive from you” when it was not only wrong, but sounded condescending and rude to me. You also accused me of “hubris” when I didn’t call you any names.

Of course, I suppose I don’t have as much patience as I used to with things like that and take more offense than I used to because of the two year long smear campaign and getting bombarded with insults by a few christians. I will accept that you did not mean it intentionally.

I’ve been telling you why your arguments are wrong, not to mention a misunderstanding as I’ve gone over a few times already.

why not answer my arguments?

So far, I haven't seen you offer any here.

I was referring specifically to my arguments against the supernatural which you’ve refused to address, and simply dismissed out of hand. Plus, you’ve still failed to show why my argument about events happening without cause is incorrect.

Atheism isn’t a “worldview”

Well I said "communist worldview," so I'm not sure why this matters.

Allow me to quote you in full:

The communists wordview provides them with justified reasons to commit the atrocities they did. Either social darwinism or complete moral relativism, either way they have a reason according to their worldview. Christians who have committed atrocities (which, by numbers, were a drop in the bucket compared to atheist atrocities, not that that justifies it) are going against their worldview and thus being incosistent. Atheists are being consistent.

Yes, you said “communists wordview”, however you clearly implied that atheism was a factor and said, “Atheists are being consistent” which implies that atheism leads to a lack of morality, or is a worldview that nothing really matters. By including atheists in general with that last sentence I felt you were referring to atheism itself. Many others also seem to lump together communism and atheism. This is how I interpreted that sentence. If that’s not what you meant I apologize.

There are probabilities that one can assign to something to attain its truth or falsity, even if we don’t know for sure

Okay, but you said there are degrees of truth also. Probability doesn't determine of something is true or not, but it gives a guide to determine whether a proposition is plausible.

When I said this I was implying what I discussed about probabilities. As an example, evolution is true, and yet certain aspects of it may be false. So in one sense it’s true but also false. Looking back I don’t think wording it that way was very understandable.

The fact that, as I said, science makes successful predictions and creates workable machines, medicines, etc. is proof that science is on the right track. If it weren’t true, it wouldn’t work! Furthermore, the lack of evidence for the supernatural, which you have still not addressed, is evidence that the naturalistic explanations are the right ones.

The practicality of a model doesn't determine it's truth either. FOr a long time, scientists employed the theory of the aether, and it worked and provided a model to test the way things work. Also, Newtonian physics is very practical, but it isn't correct, as relativity theory has shown. Just because a scientific model works doesn't mean it's true.

I already said that a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

In some cases I agree, however, if you go to a doctor and he hands you medicine that knocks out, say, a cold and it also worked very well in trials, then I’d say that the theories and whatnot employed (like the idea of natural selection with HIV/AIDS) are true.

I didn’t say it was fool proof, but it certainly is more reliable than mere human testimony.

Human testimony is what is interpreting the evidence.

You didn’t respond to my counter-argument that human testimony can be horribly flawed, which is why the testing of ideas is so important. You seem to be saying that it’s human beings who interpret the evidence, but again - and this is something I’ve gone over before - our senses and opinions can be flawed, but we have the scientific method to double check what our senses and opinions tell us. If one or the other are out of sync then we’ve got a problem and it tells us that we need to do more investigating. This is what I’ve interpreted your response to be: that even a scientific test could still could be in error because we still rely on our fallible senses to decipher the results. But I don’t believe that’s a viable counter-argument for reasons I just answered.

What in my worldview? It has nothing to do with worldviews, but the simple fact that the more variables you control the more likely you’re going to get more accurate results.

It does. If your worldview is completely naturalistic, then I contend that you lack a suitable grounds for claiming that empirical evidence is a reliable source of truth, because you lack empirical evidence that the mind-independent world even exists.

We were discussing the dependability of scientific tests and you asked what in my worldview tells me that this is a reliable method of finding truth. Again, it has nothing to do with a worldview. It has to do with the fact - that is independent of anyone’s worldview - that over time as a theory is tested over and over again, and is confirmed over and over again that confirms it’s validity. Evolution is one such example. Evolution is a theory about the world but it has been tested over one-hundred years and is still being confirmed and built upon. As of now not a single piece of evidence has put it in doubt.

What do you mean when you said I “lack empirical evidence that the mind-independent world even exists?” Before I answer I want to be sure of your meaning.

Again, I also was not discussing the universe itself but atoms and radioactive processes.

Which is irrelevant to the first premise of the Kalaam, as I have shown.

I have addressed your misunderstanding of my argument above already.

the universe could be eternal, destroying the theists’ reliability on god.

The universe could not be eternal, beacause an actual infinite cannot exist. Craig goes into great detail to show this in his arguments for Kalaam. I very briefly summarize his arguments here. He discusses it here.

Plus, all cosmological evidence so far points to a universe with a beginning. It is you here who is battling against science.

If you would have read my paper on Craig more fully I addressed the issue of an eternal universe at length and why the scientific theory of the big bang does not rule out an eternal universe. There are theories of the universe that take into account an eternal universe that are compatible with all known laws of science. I gave references in my post. So, no it is not I who is battling against science, but Craig and any other theist who insists the universe couldn’t be eternal. Craigs’ arguments about it being a logical impossibility for there to be an eternal universe are not convincing. It goes back to a major theme I discussed in my paper, which is the fact that logic is not always the best guide for truth; ideas must be tested. And scientifically it is possible to have an eternal universe.

as I said before, it’s illogical to posit god as the ultimate cause when 1. there is no direct evidence of god

Excepting the beginning of all space and time.

As I just said, this is not necessarily the case. And again, even if the universe were to be found for certain to have an absolute beginning it wouldn’t prove it was the christian god by far. It would simply mean the universe had a beginning. Anyone who would automatically posit god would be jumping to conclusions.

2. how does one go about proving their particular god created the universe?

The Kalaam isn't formulated to do that, though with Ockham's razor, the Kalaam would reduce the field to the monotheistic religions. Rather, it's part of a cumulative case for Christianity. Muslims and Jews can use Kalaam as well, they'd just leave out Christian specific arguments in their case.

I wasn’t referring to the Kalaam argument but how you, or another christian, would know that it was truly your god that created the universe? Is it based on faith? Is it based upon what scripture tells you? How do you know?

The naturalistic scenarios are the most likely since that’s all that has been observed are natural processes to begin with.

There is no naturalistic scenario for the beginning of the universe.

Sure there is. There are several scenarios and one of them I cited was developed by other scientists, and Victor Stenger worked out the mathematics and simplified it, which in his latest book, The New Atheism, explains how so far no errors has been pointed out by any scientist, cosmologist, or philosopher. He admits, however, that “this picture of the origin of the universe is not widely recognized [and that it is presented merely] as a scenario consistent with all of our knowledge by which the universe occurs naturally [...].” (171)

I don’t see why theists are always asking for an “argument for atheism.” The very lack of evidence of a god is evidence for atheism’s truth.

Wrong, because as (I think it was) Bertrand Russel admits, the atheist could defeat all of the theist's arguments, and it could still be the case that there is a God. Saying, "there is no God," is as much a truth claim as saying, there is a God," and requires equal justification. You need a positive argument for God's non-existence.

Wrong? I very much disagree because there is no evidence for unicorns or leprechauns, even though people could make up reasons that they exist, but we still don’t believe in them since there’s been no proof of their existence. Even though there is no evidence either way people still don’t think it’s absurd not to believe in these things. Due to the lack of evidence for their existence it’s perfectly logical to dismiss them. I do the same with god.

The record actually shows that my argument about causes was still not answered and I have torn down the arguments for god.

Even if this were true, it wouldn't follow that there is no God. All that would follow is that the Kalaam argument doesn't display God.

I wasn’t just talking about the Kalaam argument but all the arguments for god that have been put forward. But I think I would agree that a refutation of the arguments for god wouldn’t prove there is no god, however it surely defeats any intellectual reason for belief, which I think puts the theist in a precarious position. With no foundation for their beliefs other than pure faith how does the theist justify their beliefs other than simply stating that’s what they believe?

It’s true there could be some god out there and perhaps the scriptures of all religions have just gotten it wrong? Maybe it’s just an impersonal creator as the Deist believes? Either way, there is no evidence for such a thing and so I rightfully dismiss it.

Things can happen without cause

You still haven't shown that.

Sure I have, you just seem to ignore it when I argued that I cited the fact that "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event” and how the decay of a radioactive nucleus can seemingly happen without cause. You’ve yet to refute either of these examples of things happening without cause. You simply said in your attempt at a counter-argument, “Um, you cite the cause of that event right there. We may not know why it happens, but we know the cause, namely the energy level dropping” No, that is the event that takes place, it was not the cause. Why does the energy level drop and emit a photon? That’s the event that scientists have failed to find a cause for, and it seems there is none until proven otherwise.

the supernatural has yet to be proven

The currently available theistic arguments give good reasons to believe in a supernatural being, and you've given no arguments to show that the supernatural couldn't exist. Given that I have good reasons to believe, and no good reasons not to, I think your position is weak. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It is the theists who claim there is, in fact, an immaterial realm and a supernatural being. Thus far, non-believers have struck down each of these arguments leaving the theist without an intellectual justification for their beliefs, as I explained previously. There have been no supernatural healings, no prayers answered. All claims of the supernatural have been shown to be false or are currently unexplained, and just because they are unexplained doesn’t mean it was a supernatural cause. Because of the fact that all we’ve found are natural causes and/or hoaxes, it is the simplest explanation that should be favored, and that is a naturalistic universe. It goes back to what I said before about probabilities and truth. Based on the evidence we have the likelyhood of there not being a supernatural realm and being are great. We may not be able to prove this 100% but with enough certainty to say that god and the supernatural most likely do not exist.

Simply arguing that something we don’t understand is supernatural is jumping to conclusions. Like I said, the supernatural has yet to be proven.

the universe could be eternal thus casting god aside

There are good philosophical and scientific reasons to reject this, which I've already stated. Furthermore, it wouldn't follow that there is no God if the universe could be eternal. It would only damage the Kalaam argument.

If you had read my paper more carefully I refute Craig’s “scientific” argument that the universe couldn’t be eternal and as I said before, philosophy isn’t grounded in fact. Just because something seems logical doesn’t make it less likely.

I also cannot believe you accused me of “hubris” since you’re the one saying I’m ignorant and arrogant when you’ve failed to even address what I’ve said to begin with about causes.

Well it wasn't meant as an insult, but was meant to comment on the tone of your website. I said your claim about things coming into existence was ignorant. You may be ignorant about that, but that's not a personal insult.

Hmm... this discussion was between you and me, not what I’ve said throughout my entire website. My tone is polite to others on my site when they deserve it and I make no apologies for this. Besides, you accuse me of being rude when I haven’t been to you personally. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Correction, when I say there is no naturalistic scenario for the beginning of the universe, I mean there is no plausible scenario that escapes an absolute beginning of all space and time and matter.

On the contrary earlier I cited Stenger as giving an example of exactly how this could occur and he says this “scenario for the natural origin of the universe has the feature of an unlimited past and future.” (171) The scenario he gives is natural, is in line with all of the facts we know of the universe, and is consistent with an eternal universe. I’m sorry, but it seems you need to keep up with the research that’s being done. No longer is a beginning of the universe the only answer. Science has begun to see that an eternal universe is possible.

So, up to this point you’ve still failed to answer my arguments against the existence of the supernatural (which I believe I linked to in an earlier response), you’ve failed to show why my examples of events do have causes, and you’re still insisting that old science is still valid - that of an absolute beginning to the universe - and is not necessarily the case as an eternal universe is possible.

Update 8-1-10

Hmm... how did I mention the cause when I didn’t? Even that quote, which I got from Stenger, says the cause is unknown. You’ve failed to answer this argument about causes.

That's because Stenger isn't that impressive. Stenger says, as you quote, "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event." Okay, so first the atom is in an excited level of energy. WHEN it lowers, then it emits a photon...wouldn't we then say the lowering of the level would be what causes the atom to emit a photon? And it is also clear that the photon was caused by the atom. So this isn't a case that would at all controvert premise 1.

It is the atheist position that has become desperate here, as you are now willing to accept that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing for no reason whatsoever. That's a bit far-fetched.

So now having been unable to give me an answer about things happening without cause, you simply blurt out an answer, which isn’t correct. Scientists have yet to figure out what causes the dropping of the level, not just the emitting of a photon. You’re missing the point. I’m sorry but the only desperate one here is you. Grasping at straws in trying to answer an argument is an obvious act of desperation. It’s also funny that you mock atheists when for centuries theists have believed that some uncaused being has just happened to exist and is eternal, thus not only contradicting yourselves, but causing yourselves to be immense hypocrites because your god can be eternal and uncaused, but the universe can’t.

Again, you seem to be confusing two separate subjects: that of events that have no cause and the argument that things can or can’t come from nothing

No, we're speaking about the Kalaam cosmological argument, which is about the universe coming into being out of nothing. You assert that there are things that come into being out of nothing, and or happen without a cause. This has never been displayed. And, since you have not shown that something can come from nothing, this is a problem for you, because we do know the causes for these events, namely the physical universe they exist in. Like the quantum particles that appear spontaneously for a short amount of time, they are caused by the quantum vacuum. For something to legitimately have no cause, it would have to come from nothing.

First off, as I’ve shown over and over again, things can seemingly happen without cause. I presented an example that you’ve yet to refute and so that cuts off the Kalam argument in its tracks. I further showed that, while scientists are divided over the issues, it’s possible for the universe to be eternal, once again cutting the Kalam argument down since it’s possible the universe didn’t have a beginning in the first place.

and when I cited Stenger about his natural scenario for the origin of the universe that takes into account an eternal universe that had nothing to do about things coming from nothing

Which goes against the current cosmological evidence, and fails to address the philosophical objections to an eternal universe.

Please reread my paper. An eternal universe isn’t against any scientific principle. In fact, even the scientist Craig quoted, Alexander Vilenkin, told me via email that it’s still possible to get around his equation given various "subtleties." And there are cosmological theories I cited, such as one by Anthony Aguirre, that is compatible with Vilenkin’s theorem. So nothing I say is against any form of cosmological evidence.

You’ve failed to answer my objection about causes, and when I cited Stenger about his natural scenario for the origin of the universe that takes intoaccount an eternal universe that had nothing to do about things coming from nothing

No, I answered that quite extensively. If you can't deal with my answer, then move on.

I’m sorry, but which discussion are you reading because it sure isn’t this one. Allow me to quote some of your “objections”:

“These examples aren't causeless events. They have causes, whether it's the existing atom or the existing energy within the quantum vacuum.”

“This is just ignorant. You would seemingly claim that things, in this case, can come into existence uncaused out of nothing and that quantum physics has corroborated this. But this isn't the case at all. For starters, the quantum vacuum where these particles seemingly pop into existence is not nothing. This quantum vacuum is demonstrably not nothing. As Craig writes, "a quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles, which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This is not "nothing," and hence, material particles do not come into being out of nothing. Popular presentations of these models often do not explain that they require a specially fine-tuned, background space-time on the analogy of a quantum mechanical vacuum. The origin of the observable universe from this wider space-time is not a free lunch at all. It requires an elaborately set table, which must be paid for," and, "a quantum vacuum...is a rich physical reality possessing physical properties: it is not creation from nothing."”

“Okay, so first the atom is in an excited level of energy. WHEN it lowers, then it emits a photon...wouldn't we then say the lowering of the level would be what causes the atom to emit a photon? And it is also clear that the photon was caused by the atom. So this isn't a case that would at all controvert premise 1.”

Here are some, or most, of your supposed rebuttals to the fact that some things seem to happen without cause. In each you fail to show what caused the energy level to drop in the example of the atom - not to mention the decay of a radioactive nucleus. In the third you seem to misunderstand the phenomenon I’m describing entirely. The very fact that an atom drops to a lower level and also emits a photon those are the actions which we find no cause for. It’s not, as you wrongly say, the dropping of the atom causes the emission of a photon. The entire string of actions seem to occur without cause. So yes, you have failed to answer this argument.

I was not discussing “something from nothing” or what have you

Then you aren't refuting the Kalaam argument, and you have pages of irrelevant "refutation."

Umm... the Kalam argument as stated by Craig is as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I showed that the universe didn’t have to have a beginning, unlike what he claims. If the universe didn’t have a beginning then it doesn’t need a cause as the Kalam argument states, and the argument is refuted. My arguments aren’t irrelevant at all.

However, as I said in my post,the argument that only things that begin need a cause is foolish because Craig is only relying on logic

1) What's wrong with relying on logic? 2) Craig uses modern cosmology, which is more than "only relying on logic."

I don’t completely dismiss logic. It can be helpful in many cases, I just like to keep my fallible brain in check by the methods of science. After all, people used to think it was crazy talk for people to go into space, but we’ve done it a number of times. Just because someone can think up (like Craig does) supposed reasons why something is allegedly illogical doesn’t make it so.

And again it seems you didn’t read my paper close enough because I refuted Craig’s “scientific” arguments for this cosmological argument.

which as I show in my paper is not always reliable and this is where science can lend a hand in figuring out the truth.

Logic is always reliable at determining whether an argument is valid.

Science can be used to verify if the premises in an argument are true or not, but Science itself isn't always reliable and is subject to, among other things, technology and the people's interpretations who are performing it. If you show an idea to be philosophically incoherent, you are right every time. Science isn't like that.

Not so. Craig uses philosophy to argue, for example, that all things need a cause, however, I’ve given examples of events that take place with no cause. There is one example of the failure of purely philosophical thinking in determining truth. As I’ve said, philosophy must be fact-checked by the scientific method to ensure they match up to reality.

Craig cites no factual argument in support of his case and I also show why his scientific argument he uses is also flawed.

Um, he constantly cites scientific evidence.

Please reread what I wrote. I said that Crag presents no factual argument to support his case. By this I’m referring to purely philosophical argument. When he does attempt to use science I demonstrate why he is wrong.

The point is that no one knows for sure about this yet and we’ll just have to wait for further discoveries.

Appeal to ignorance. We don't know if things can come into being uncaused out of nothing, therefore we must conclude that it's possible? That's ridiculous, and simply shows the desperation of your position. We do know that things don't simply pop into being uncaused out of nothing. This is why I'm confident that when I walk down the street I will not be surprised by the brick that randomly pops into being right over my head. When we have events, we always always expect a cause.

There’s nothing wrong with shrugging our shoulders when we’re not sure about something. It’s usually the theist who needs and asks for absolute certainty, but science isn’t like that. Either way, as best we can tell right now, the science tells us that the universe may have been born from a quantum event or in the standard big bang model, both of which aren’t nothing, which would be an enormous strawman by Craig. [1]

Like I said, it’s bad logic

Show that. Assertion is not argument.

Hmmm... you must have skipped everything I wrote directly after that snip you quoted from. I did explain why I felt it was illogical.

The argument is built around the theists’ desire - just as I said in my paper on Craig’s arguments - for his/her god to have been the one to do the creating

Genetic fallacy, not to mention you have no support for it. Even if the argument grows from the theist's desire for there to be a God, it doesn't say anything about whether it is true or not. Furthermore, how do you know it's simply based on the theist's desire? Maybe those who have come to this conclusion did so by the necessity of the argument and the evidence? CS Lewis is a good example. He DIDN'T want there to be a God.

You asked for the reason we should conclude this cause is God, I gave you the reason. Your response is a combination of simply asserting that it's "bad logic" and some bad logic of your own, namely the genetic fallacy.

Actually, what you gave me was more theistic mumbo jumbo about how the cause has to be immaterial, and it just has to be personal but you didn’t explain why. Why does it have to be these things? Like I said, these things are never explained. We’re just supposed to accept it apparently because it fits the god christians worship. Just as I said: theists invent a god with a particular set of attributes and claims that a cause of the universe needs just those attributes to have come into being. That’s just silly to be honest.

but why coudn’t it have been some other being? Why not an impersonal force? This is never explained

I just explained that. Read it again.

I’m sorry but you didn’t do any such thing. Just spouted the usual theology about how god just has to have been this or that and the universe must be this or that way. You didn’t explain why.

Why not a material cause? This is never explained.

You just cited me in your response, I said, "According to the logic of the Kalaam argument, it would have to be an immaterial cause, because it brought into existence all matter. It would also have to be personal, since the only immaterial thing that is able to cause something would be a mind, as abstract objects are causally effete."

Like I said all you did was cite the usual theistic mumbo jumbo. Why does the cause need to be immaterial? Physical, material causes can certainly bring things into existence, like quantum events, which is one possibility for the origin of the universe.

In your very first post to me you called me ignorant,when it was you who misunderstood the argument to begin with as I’ve gone over several times throughout our discussion

I said you were ignorant about a subject. That isn't a personal insult.

As I said previously, I’ve been called names and insulted many times throughout several discussions so when people call me any names I tend to get defensive ever since that happened. But calling me ignorant I don’t think was very appropriate, especially when it was you who misunderstood my argument in the first place.

You also made statements that I took offense to, such as, “I
haven't seen much of anything substantive from you”

Hubris is self confidence. It doesn't have anything to do with name calling.

Yes, I know that, but when I read your response it seemed at the time to me that you felt I was acting improperly in some way. I thought you meant arrogant and snotty, or rude, which I didn’t feel I was being. If someone absolutely proves me wrong on something then I thank them. Then I’m that much closer to the truth. It’s just a matter of fact that very few people have poked holes in my arguments. It’s not that it’s not possible to do that, but it just hasn’t happened. I don’t think that’s arrogance. I’m just saying you’re wrong, please give me facts to back up your claims that jive with what we know about the world. I’m just stating facts.

Of course, I suppose I don’t have as much patience as I used to with things like that and take more offense than I used to because of the two year long smear campaign and getting bombarded with insults by a few christians.

Well I'm ignorant as to those situations. I'm simply trying to dialog with you, which will include direct and blunt conversation. It's inevitable in a debate. I'm not aiming to insult you in any way.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I was referring specifically to my arguments against the supernatural which you’ve refused to address, and simply dismissed out of hand

I haven't seen you offer them here. Please offer them here and I'll address them.

When I told you I had linked to my arguments against the supernatural you responded with: “I haven't seen much of anything substantive from you.” I took this to mean that you had read the posts in the link and simply dismissed them. If you didn’t read them they can be found here and here.

which implies that atheism leads to a lack of morality,or is a worldview that nothing really matters

Atheism doesn't necessarily lead to immorality, but it certainly would be consistent with an amoral system.

Communism does not equal atheism, but some communists were atheists.

Well, atheism, by it’s very nature is amoral. As I’ve said it’s just a negative and contains no ideology of it’s own. An atheist must look at philosophical systems and use their reason to choose which beliefs about morality he/she feels is the best way to live. Because of this, both good and bad people can be atheists and have an immoral ideology guiding them, like the Communists, who believed anything was justifiable in attaining their utopia based upon the idea of having everything in common and desolving all classes. That’s why I argue it wasn’t atheism, but the Communist ideology which lead to their horrible actions.

But I do not see how religion can be any better. Religion itself does contain ideologies that can and have lead to murders and persecution, such as the belief that one true god sent a message that all should worship him and must be saved. Inquisitions anyone? Crusades? The ideology of religion can easily lead directly to this kind of thing.

As an example, evolution is true, and yet certain aspects of it may be false

This is a tad ambiguous. Evolution meaning change over time is true. The theory of neo-Darwinian evolution is a whole proposition, if there is an aspect of it that is false, then the theory must be revised, or it is false as a whole.

I wouldn’t say it’s ambiguous. That’s just the nature of science and you’re incorrect about how science operates. You don’t just throw out an entire theory because one or two things turn out to be false. Scientists try to revise their theories to make them more accurate with the new data that is collected. For example, it was found that natural selection was not the only force acting upon species, but there are also genetic drift and founder effects. These things have reduced the role of natural selection to a degree and some scientists disagree about how strong a role each of these forces plays in evolution, but the fact remains that evolution itself is true. Natural selection and evolution haven’t been falsified, only built upon and better understood.

In some cases I agree, however, if you go to a doctor and he hands you medicine that knocks out, say, a cold and it also worked very well in trials, then I’d say that the theories and whatnot employed (like the idea of natural selection with HIV/AIDS) are true.

How well something works has nothing to do with how it works. Pragmatism isn't necessarily a good way to determine if something is true. Just because certain models of scientific theories allow us to do certain things, it doesn't mean that the theory is actually 100% true as described.

No it doesn’t mean it’s 100% true, but at least mostly true. I don’t think any true scientist would argue that any theory was 100% true since scepticism is a large part of science. It’s a possibility that one day something could contradict the law of gravity, but (and this goes back to the previous discussion above) instead of throwing out the entire theory of gravitation a scientist would try to figure out what happened instead of just throwing everything out out right.

You didn’t respond to my counter-argument that human testimony can be horribly flawed

Because I agree with you. That means that Science has the potential of being horribly flawed. That is my point here.

Sure it does, as does any method of finding truth, but over time as things are tested and studied further we often confirm old ideas and discard old ones that we find are not valid. That’s the best method of finding truth. Don’t assume you’re right (like religion) but constantly test your ideas against what we find in reality/nature. But just because science can be flawed doesn’t mean it should be distrusted. As I said, over time a theory gains more acceptance if it continually makes correct predictions. I agree nothing is perfect but it seems you’re asking for some ultimate method for finding truth and trying to make science adhere to this high bar you’re setting, but that’s just not realistic. You just have to go where the evidence leads you at that point and if it turns out to be wrong, well then, so be it. At least a person who does this is open minded and flexible enough to change their minds should new evidence become available that would discredit or cause a change in their beliefs. But over time a person will get ever closer to the truth. Besides, what other forms of truth finding is there? Revelation? Some holy book? I don’t think so. Holy books have been found to be wrong on so many levels, and revelation has yet to be nothing more than an individual who pretends to hear voices from beyond. And then, of course, what happens when two revelations contradict one another, like those of christianity and those of mormonism, where Joseph Smith was supposedly visited by god and jesus and told that all other forms of christianity were false. How do you figure out which is true? What methods do you use to figure this out?

our senses and opinions can be flawed, but we have the scientific method to double check what our senses and opinions tell us.

The Scientific method presupposes that we have reliable senses, because we use our senses to verify the scientific data. Therefore, if you are going to discount something solely because human senses are horribly flawed, since science requires human senses, it is also horribly flawed.

This goes back to what I just said. You’re asking science to be completely flawless when that’s just not realistic. You’re setting an impossible standard. And our senses aren’t totally without fail since they do a pretty good job of deciphering the world and judging the distance from cliffs so we don’t fall off for example. They are also acute enough to allow us to hit a swiftly moving fast ball, and can often tell when someone is lying to us, so our senses should not simply be dismissed.

We were discussing the dependability of scientific tests and you asked what in my worldview tells me that this is a reliable method of finding truth. Again, it has nothing to do with a worldview.

Your epistemology has everything to do with your worldview. You must have a coherent grounds for discovering truth if you are going to be sure if anything is true. Why do you think that empirical evidence is a good source of truth, when you can't have evidence for that proposition? If empirical evidence is your foundation of knowledge, then you don't have a ground to think that empirical knowledge is reliable.

I would disagree with your first sentence, because, as I said before, whether or not a person accepts prayer for example (thus also accepting the immaterial) has nothing to do with whether or not it actually works. It either does or it doesn’t. So far all attempts to test prayer have failed and therefore the evidence would (or at least should) lead someone to the conclusion that prayer is nonsense. This isn’t about accepting a worldview because regardless of a person’s views prayer either works or it doesn’t. Now, a person who accepts the supernatural and the power of prayer will obviously make excuses but that doesn’t make prayer any more true. It
hasn’t been shown to work, period.

I’ve given you evidence for why empiricism is a reliable form for finding truth. But as I said, it’s not perfect, but nothing is.

t has to do with the fact - that is independent of anyone’s worldview - that over time as a theory is tested over and over again, and is confirmed over and over again that confirms it’s validity.

But you have no empirical evidence that it is independent of your worldview.

Sure I have. Something either works or it doesn’t. Just because a person believes in the supernatural doesn’t mean it actually exists. A person will either be able to heal someone through prayer or not. A person will be able to read the mind of another or not. If not, then whether or not a person’s worldview accepts the supernatural is irrelevant. It’s all about following the evidence. That’s what I was trying to get across to the christian in this discussion. Eventually, I saw he wasn’t going to see the truth of the matter and so I respectfully bowed out of the discussion. I wasn’t adhering to some dogma as he argued (and it seems that you’re saying) but looking at where the evidence pointed to come to my conclusions. The reason I accept a naturalistic universe is because that’s all that’s been observed. Nothing more. How can I go by other methods when others have been shown to be false, such as supernaturalism or immaterialism? It would be foolish for me to because there is no evidence for that view of the world.

What do you mean when you said I “lack empirical evidence that the mind-independent world even exists?” Before I answer I want to be sure of your meaning.

I mean you have no means of testing to see that the external world is not just an illusion being stimulated by a mad scientist who has your brain in a vat.

I don’t think this really matters for the discussion at hand. Either way, if this were happening and the evil being wished to trick us we wouldn’t be able to distinguish between ourselves actually sitting at our computers, or the evil being causing us to believe we are sitting at our computers. All we have, as I said, is what our experiences tell us and they tells us that we aren’t brains in vats. Again, nothing is fool proof, but that’s all we have to go on, so I don’t see the point in proposing such questions because, while somewhat interesting, are ultimately pointless. How do you know you know you’re not a brain in a vat? Do you have access to knowledge I, or any other human being, doesn’t have? No, you don’t.

I have addressed your misunderstanding of my argument above already.

And that means your argument against the first premise is irrelevant.

I’ve already explained in this reply in more detail why your criticism was unfounded.

If you would have read my paper on Craig more fully I addressed the issue of an eternal universe at length and why the scientific theory of the big bang does not rule out an eternal universe

I read your blog post. It doesn't deal with Craig's philosophical arguments about an actual infinite amount of time existing. It is an incoherent idea, thus the universe had to have a beginning.

As I’ve said, Craig’s philosophizing is pointless because there are actual facts and evidence that refute his armchair philosophy. Simply stating something without evidence isn’t an argument, and the factual, scientific evidence he does cite I show is false by quoting the author of the research he used. You’ve continued to fail to answer this argument. Despite Craig’s beliefs, things can seem to happen without cause, and the scientist he cited refutes Craig’s interpretation of his research.

There are theories of the universe that take into account an eternal universe that are compatible with all known laws of science.

They actually aren't, and most of them fall to the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem that shows that any universe that is expanding had to come into being similar to the Big Bang model, whether they are cyclical, inflationary, etc. This chart shows the failure of these alternate theories of avoiding an absolute beginning of the universe.

I gave you examples of a theory which didn’t require a beginning but you continue to ignore it in favor of attacking other cosmological models.

So, no it is not I who is battling against science, but Craig and any other theist who insists the universe couldn’t be eternal.

Not only does Craig rely on the consensus and mainstream view of cosmology, but he also provides philosophical reasons why an infinite past is impossible. So yes, you are running against the grain of mainstream cosmology and against philosophical argumentation.

As I’ve explained, philosophical argumentation is pretty much pointless, and even the science Craig cites I’ve refuted. So you cannot simply ignore this damning argument against Craig I’ll go ahead and quote it:

During their email exchange Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question,

"Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?"

Vilenkin replied,

"No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time."

In addition, Craig misuses the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. In Craig’s “Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe” he says that “any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary.” However, he is misquoting the paper by Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin because their paper actually says that, “almost all” inflationary models of the universe will reach a boundary in the past. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposalwhich states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”). [2]

Craigs’ arguments about it being a logical impossibility for there to be an eternal universe are not convincing.

Blind assertion. Why?

As I said, because the science contradicts it, as I just explained quite throughly.

It goes back to a major theme I discussed in my paper, which is the fact that logic is not always the best guide for truth

So you think we should be illogical? If logic shows something to be incoherent, then it can't be true. If you want to show otherwise, you need to show that an actual infinite is possible to exist in reality.

As I’ve continually shown, according to Craig’s “logic” he believes it impossible for things to happen without cause. I’ve shown this isn’t the case scientifically.

ideas must be tested

We use logic when testing ideas.

To some degree yes, but again, what we believe can turn out to be false when we put them to the test as I just explained above.

And scientifically it is possible to have an eternal universe.

Science isn't the only arbiter of truth, and science couldn't possibly touch on the subject of whether an actual infinite could exist, not to mention that there is nothing empirically that constitutes an actual infinite. But you object to belief in God because of the supposed lack of empirical evidence. Why are you comfortable with thinking that an actual infinite nuber of things could exist without empirical evidence?

I consider it a possibility because it doesn’t contradict any of the laws of science. Craig constantly cites the second law of thermodynamics, but always leaves out the first, because that would be consistent with an eternal universe: energy can be transformed but cannot be created or destroyed.

As I said, we’re still learning more about the universe and I’m sure in the future we will get closer to the truth as we gather more data. But to simply argue it’s impossible when the science tells us otherwise is getting ahead of yourself. I’ve also cited several theories that confirm this, such as Stenger’s and Aguirre’s.

As I just said, this is not necessarily the case

It is if the Kalaam argument is true.

And according the the evidence at hand, things can happen without cause so the Kalam fails, as I explained earlier in this reply.

And again, even if the universe were to be found for certain to have an absolute beginning it wouldn’t prove it was the christian god by far.

No one has claimed it does. I stated earlier, "it's part of a cumulative case for Christianity. Muslims and Jews can use Kalaam as well, they'd just leave out Christian specific arguments in their case."

No one has claimed it does? Craig does in the paper I refuted in his conclusion of his discussion of the Cosmological Argument from Contingency: “So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe.”

He is arguing that the cause must be his christian god. While he doesn’t say this explicitly it’s obvious what he believes is the creator. His christian god.

I wasn’t referring to the Kalaam argument but how you, or another christian, would know that it was truly your god that created the universe?

Which is directly related to the Kalaam argument, which we are discussing. Again, read what you just cited me as saying.

And I just quoted Craig as arguing that the cause must have the attributes that his god has. How convenient! As I said, what evidence does one have to know it was the christian god who did the creating? This still hasn’t been answered. You’re arguing in a circle. Because the argument states the cause must have the attributes of your god it must be your god that did the creating. That’s circular reasoning and invalid.

Wrong? I very much disagree because there is no evidence for unicorns or leprechauns,

We have good evidence that such beings don't exist. We know that unicorns are mythical creatures created in stories, and we know that leprechauns don't exist because we know what rainbows actually are, namely refractions of light with no end. We don't base out disbelief in these creature simply on a lack of evidence, but also on positive evidence of their non-existence.

I'm asking you for similar evidence in the case of God. Give me an argument or evidence against the existence of God.

I said: "Even if this were true, it wouldn't follow that there is no God. All that would follow is that the Kalaam argument doesn't display God."

You said: I wasn’t just talking about the Kalaam argument but all the arguments for god that have been put forward

What I said there was in response to when you said, "The record actually shows that my argument about causes was still not answered and I have torn down the arguments for god."

Even if you showed that the argument about causes is wrong, that wouldn't disprove God, it would simply damage the Kalaam Cosmological argument. There are still other arguments for God.

And even if you tore all of those arguments down, which you haven't (I'm working on a series of posts to show this), you still haven't disproved that God exists. Rather you have shown that the classical arguments for Him don't work. You STILL need to provide a positive case against the existence of God, which you haven't done.

What positive evidence do you have that unicorns or leprechauns don’t exist? Nothing more than the fact that no one has actually observed one, right? Just as with the case of god, the only difference is that an entire industry has been built up around the idea of god and thus work to propagate the idea, so even if no one has ever seen god or been able to prove their experiences happened in reality people still believe despite the lack of evidence.

I find it odd that you’d argue that, even if my arguments against god were correct , all I would accomplish is that the christian god would be false. Well, isn’t that the very objective? Show that your god doesn’t exist? That right there would defeat christianity. But of course, religion and the human mind are creative when confronted with evidence against a particular proposition. People will distort and make up things in order to hold on to that belief. That’s why for many people the christian god is transforming into a more deistic god to many christians and a more traditional god is falling by the wayside. More people in polls are found to be more “spiritual” rather than traditionally religious: "We are becoming a nation of spiritually anchored people who are not traditionally religious," said Serene Jones, president of the Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York. [3] This trend is already beginning to take place and has been for several years.

this discussion was between you and me, not what I’ve said throughout my entire website.

1) You're the one who keeps referencing your blog posts. 2) I was commenting on your self confidence in your arguments. I don't think you have a reason to feel that great about them. I don't think they're that good.

Only the blog posts that give you the relevant information for why I take the position I do. You also seem pretty cocky yourself - especially for not being able to answer my arguments as I’ve shown repeatedly.

On the contrary earlier I cited Stenger as giving an example of exactly how this could occur and he says this

Please elucidate on his model, which I believe is the Hartle-Hawking model. See below as I deal with that.

I’ll go ahead and deal with that now...

and you’re still insisting that old science is still valid

Actually, Stenger has been out of the loop for quite a while since he retired. The theory he's presented is the Hartle-Hawking model, I believe, which was formed in 1983. Hawking uses imaginary numbers (square root of -1). He simply fails to convert back into real numbers. Furthermore, this theory doesn't avoid a beginning of the universe, but only avoids a beginning point.

Hawking states about this theory, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities" (Hawking, Brief History of Time, pp. 138-139).

So Hawking doesn't eliminate the initial singularity, but only conceals it behind the unintelligible and unsupported idea of imaginary time.

So the one relying on old science is Victor Stenger. He also still fails to address the VBG theorem and the philosophical arguments against the actual infinite past.

Actually, Hawking specifically says that when taking quantum mechanics into account there simply is no singularity. He said quite plainly in The Illustrated A Brief History of Time: “So in the end our work [Hawking and Penrose] became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account.” (1996; 67) [emphasis mine]

So no, it’s not Stenger who is basing his views on old science, but Craig.

So, up to this point you’ve still failed to answer my arguments against the existence of the supernatural

Since, as you just said, "this discussion was between you and me, not what I’ve said throughout my entire website," I would appreciate if you would present the arguments here so we can deal with them here. I can't deal with something I haven't seen.

As I explained earlier, this may have been a misunderstanding on my part because I thought you had read those arguments against the supernatural and dismissed them. I linked to them in this response.

you’ve failed to show why my examples of events do have causes

No I haven't. These examples aren't causeless events. They have causes, whether it's the existing atom or the existing energy within the quantum vacuum.

I’m sorry, but I explained why your attempts at an answer fail already.

In fact, as Craig states, "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science."

As I have shown, Craig’s statement that “the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever” is way off the mark since the very scientist he quoted disagrees, and Craig misquoted his research as I showed earlier.

Thus far, I’ve continually shown your arguments to be flawed; demonstrated that not only you, but Craig have wrongly cited scientists as agreeing you with, and you still have been unable to correctly answer how the dropping of the atom and its release of a photon have a cause.

Because earlier you said that you’re working on a series of posts allegedly showing why my arguments against god are flawed I will go ahead and bow out of this current discussion and wait for the upcoming posts so I can respond to those. I have no doubt you will repeat many, if not all, of your errors in those postings that I’ve already corrected you on here and don’t feel like having two conversations that are virtually the same. Besides, we’re pretty much arguing in circles while I continually prove how Craig’s arguments fail, so I don’t see much point in continuing.

Since I will not reply any further in the current discussion thread I respectfully ask you to address anything said here in your upcoming posts.

I’m looking forward to your future posts and thank you for the civil discussions and I apologize for the few misunderstandings that took place.

Take care.

1. Can a Singularity Be Described as “Nothing?” - accessed 7-31-10

2. Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe - accessed 8-1-10

3. America Is Becoming Less Christian, Less Religious - accessed 8-1-10

Update - 8-3-10

I’m still waiting for Brennon to respond to my latest reply and hopefully I’ll get to see those blog posts he was talking about soon. Until then, someone who goes by the name of J.C. Thibodaux has left a slightly nasty reply to me. Here is his comment and the reply I left.

A.A.,

There's nothing hypocritical about believing in an uncaused God who caused the universe, since the two are in entirely different categories. Things that seemingly happen without a cause do not prove physical events without cause -you're putting forth little more than "non-causative naturalism of the gaps." The experiences of the disciples are proven forensically (rather than empirically) by their testimony beyond any reasonable doubt. If you believe only empirical evidence is admissible, I invite you to prove this empirically.

The cause needs be material, because material causes are themselves caused, leaving you with infinite regress. The effects of prayer (at least for Christians) can't be empirically tested as impersonal phenomena are, since the fulfillment or lack thereof is contingent upon an intelligent, living Being, not impersonal forces; frankly that you would even suggest such a thing betrays your monumental confusion and ignorance on this subject. Your essays on the supernatural are garbage as far as disproving the supernatural, since proving that there is fake supernaturalism says nothing about whether supernatural things exist at all (any more than Piltdown man 'disproves' human evolution).

I’m very put off by your tone and you’re arguing with ideas that have no true foundation. Who says god doesn’t need a cause? Just because it’s an idea held by many doesn’t make it true. Besides, there are gods that are caused so what determines if a god is caused or not? It’s not as if gods can’t have causes because that notion is clearly false because historically we know that many people believed in gods that were born and died so they obviously had causes for their existence. So how do you know your god doesn’t need or had a cause? How can you prove that empirically? Truthfully, you can’t because it’s nothing more than dogma you’re defending.

Furthermore, the immaterial hasn’t been proven and neither has god so in reality, all this debate is pointless unless you can at least prove god and the immaterial exist beyond a reasonable doubt or else we might as well be arguing about how high a pegasus can fly!

If the examples I cite do have causes then prove it. As far as we can tell now they don’t seem to. Science is progressive. As of now, it seems that Craig’s premise is false since some things do seem to happen without cause and until then Craig’s claim is falsified. Simply saying it must be caused by something without explaining what isn’t an argument.

What is this about an infinite regress? So what? I’ve already shown scientifically that the universe could be eternal and so an infinite regress is no challenge to my arguments.

If my essays on the supernatural are truly “garbage” please explain why instead of spouting garbage yourself. I was debunking typical examples people use to “prove” the supernatural. Besides, how else would I go about debunking something without using the same examples proponents of the supernatural use to prove it in the first place? I’m showing why their examples fail.

The oft used argument that god does not simply do things on a whim (when discussing prayer) is also a bad argument because in my first paper on the supernatural I gave examples of studies which measured the effects of prayer, both from afar and with the person being prayed for and the person doing the praying in close proximity or who knew they were being prayed for. I’ve yet to find a single double blind study showing that prayer does anything when the person isn’t aware they are being prayed for. When they are aware and there does seem to be a slight change in condition, as I explained in my paper, that is tremendous evidence that prayer is nothing more then a sort of placebo effect. If god was truly the cause, the prayer would help regardless where the person being prayed for was because it wouldn’t depend on their belief they are being healed.

I also debunked the idea of prayer, something that is not “fake supernaturalism” and the claim that some aspects of brain function must be immaterial.

Thank you.

Update - 8-13-10

Well, the above rude commenter finally responded but didn’t fair much better than in his first response. Here is his response and my reply.

J.C. Thibodaux said...

AA,

@"Who says god doesn’t need a cause?"

That's what He is by definition: He Who is eternal and self-sustaining.


@"Besides, there are gods that are caused..."

Sorry, only actual gods need apply. Seriously, at least attempt to employ sound logic.


@"all this debate is pointless unless you can at least prove god and the immaterial exist beyond a reasonable doubt "

The resurrection has, therefore your further objections remain pointless as ever.


@"If the examples I cite do have causes then prove it."

For those to really be solid examples of uncaused phenomena, you'd have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they couldn't be caused.


@"I’ve already shown scientifically that the universe could be eternal"

Then present some scientific evidence for the validity of this theory.


@"If my essays on the supernatural are truly “garbage” please explain why"

I already did, The effects of prayer (at least for Christians) can't be empirically tested as impersonal phenomena are, since the fulfillment or lack thereof is contingent upon an intelligent, living Being, not impersonal forces....

Are your arguments so totally broken that you have to resort to asking me what I just stated? Said reasons also being why your other arguments ("I gave examples of studies which measured the effects of prayer...") are bunk: they're trying to test something contingent upon the will of God as if they were contingent upon impersonal forces.


@"I also debunked the idea of prayer, something that is not “fake supernaturalism”"

You debunked "the idea of prayer??" How exactly? By proving prayer doesn't exist? 0_o

Conceptually, that doesn't even make sense! Secondly, are you somehow under the impression that we think prayer itself is what changes things rather than God responding to prayer?

First off all, where do you even derive at that definition of a god? That is purely one definition since there are several kinds of gods; as I said gods can also be born and die, to which you argued that “only actual gods” don’t need causes. That makes no sense whatsoever and shows the vacuousness of your argument. The Egyptian gods Seth and even Osiris both were born and died, and those are just two examples. Just because you don’t believe in them doesn’t mean they weren’t “real gods.” They were real gods to the Egyptians, just as your god is real to you. The only differences are the attributes.

And you one up yourself with an even more absurd and outstanding claim, that an example of the supernatural is the resurrection. Well of course! Sure, let’s use as “proof” of the supernatural a story that in none of the gospels the details can be agreed upon and also the fact that there is no proof of this event taking place other than these contradictory and secondhand stories. Yeah, sure that makes perfect sense [sarcasm]. Speaking of “pointless” arguments you’re way ahead of me in that department.

The examples I cite do not seem to have causes. That’s the argument and you’ve failed to show how they might. The burden of proof is on you since there seems to be no cause. If there is show what it might be. You gave no argument whatsoever. More bad logic and another bad argument.

I also did present several examples in my paper debunking Craig some theories of an eternal universe that are consistent with everything we currently know about the universe. Another non-argument.

You’ve still failed to answer my reasoning and evidence against the existence of prayer and on top of it you don’t even seem to grasp the argument I made to begin with. Even the bible says very clearly in both Matthew 21:21 and Mark 11:24 that god answers prayer that whatever you ask for in prayer will be given to you. It seems perfectly reasonable that god would help someone who is a firm believer in him if they pray to him for pain relief, but as I said, we only see prayer working when the person praying for someone is in close proximity with the person being prayed for. The fact that you said I believe that it’s the act of praying and not god who causes the effect makes it all too clear you didn’t even understand my argument.

Your attitude is unnecessary and so I felt it best to throw some heat back your way. Your attitude makes you look even sillier since you don’t seem to even have a basic grasp of the issues under discussion. Your attempts at logic fail miserably and your arguments themselves give away your ignorance.

If you want to continue the discussion I suggest you lose the attitude and actually come back with something other than this half-assed, amateur apologetics hour nonsense.

I tried to be civil with you but your attitude made that difficult so I responded what I feel is appropriate. If you wish to continue the discussion I suggest you clean up your attitude or I may not even bother responding next time, if there is even a next time.

Update - 8-16-10

The retard wrote me back, though his arguments are even dumber than the last two times.

AA,

@First off all, where do you even derive at that definition of a god?

Not 'a god,' the God, which I believe is the point of discussion.


@That makes no sense whatsoever and shows the vacuousness of your argument.

Look who's talking. The utter insipidity of the statement "The Egyptian gods Seth and even Osiris both were born and died, and those are just two examples" in trying to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian God can somehow have an origin demonstrates just how completely intellectually bankrupt your position is, as you can't recognize a rather simple categorical distinction.


@Just because you don’t believe in them doesn’t mean they weren’t “real gods. They were real gods to the Egyptians, just as your god is real to you.”

No, I state that by virtue of the fact that they don't exist (Isaiah 45:5). I'm speaking of objective reality, not "real to the Egyptians," which again demonstrates your inability to grasp the issue.


@let’s use as “proof” of the supernatural a story that in none of the gospels the details can be agreed upon

Irrational assertion with no evidence, your typical M.O.


@The burden of proof is on you since there seems to be no cause.

Incorrect, the burden of proof is upon you, since there may be an as of yet unknown causes (and likely are, which is the more rational assumption, considering that things like decay rates in some cases can be affected by factors such as environment, implying some effect upon whatever is causing it).


@You gave no argument whatsoever. More bad logic and another bad argument.

And since you've asserted that I've made 'no argument,' the only argument left by your definitions is your own, therefore you've just admitted that the bad argument is your own. Freudian slip?


@I also did present several examples in my paper debunking Craig some theories of an eternal universe that are consistent with everything we currently know about the universe. Another non-argument.

And now you admit your examples are non-arguments. Nice one. And no, an eternal universe isn't consistent with what we know of science: The 2nd law of thermodynamics firmly refutes that, since an eternal universe would have already hit heat death.


@even the bible says very clearly in both Matthew 21:21 and Mark 11:24 that god answers prayer that whatever you ask for in prayer will be given to you.

Try reading in context.

@It seems perfectly reasonable that god would help someone who is a firm believer in him if they pray to him for pain relief

Not necessarily.

@The fact that you said I believe that it’s the act of praying and not god who causes the effect makes it all too clear you didn’t even understand my argument.

No, I merely asked that. The fact that you'd jump to such a conclusion when I made no such assertion demonstrates that your reading comprehension and/or reasoning skills are substandard at best.


@You’ve still failed to answer my reasoning and evidence against the existence of prayer

Nor need I, since it's quite evident that prayer exists -I prayed just this morning! More evidence that you're arguing for utterly insane dogma. Beyond that, showing negative examples logically can't "prove" a universal negative (or universally disprove a concept) -a basic logical principle that you seem to have missed.


@Your attitude makes you look even sillier since you don’t seem to even have a basic grasp of the issues under discussion. ... Your attempts at logic fail miserably and your arguments themselves give away your ignorance.

This coming from the guy who's trying to prove that prayer "doesn't exist." You're a laugh riot.

Not 'a god,' the God, which I believe is the point of discussion.

Look who's talking. The utter insipidity of the statement "The Egyptian gods Seth and even Osiris both were born and died, and those are just two examples" in trying to demonstrate that the Judeo-Christian God can somehow have an origin demonstrates just how completely intellectually bankrupt your position is, as you can't recognize a rather simple categorical distinction.

You argued that gods cannot die so I gave you some examples. And I also asked how you came to the conclusion that your god, unlike those others, is eternal. That is the point under discussion. You’ve still failed to tell me how you arrive at that conclusion that your god is eternal.

No, I state that by virtue of the fact that they don't exist (Isaiah 45:5). I'm speaking of objective reality, not "real to the Egyptians," which again demonstrates your inability to grasp the issue.

As I said above, it is you who doesn’t understand the issue.

Irrational assertion with no evidence, your typical M.O.

I’ve told you where my evidence is but you’re the one whose continued to fail to give me an answer as to how you came to the conclusion that your god is eternal. I’ve given links but you seem to have not read them. Several of your arguments I’ve already refuted in my paper rebutting Craig, such as the second law argument that you cite later. So, no an eternal universe is consistent with what we know about the universe.

Incorrect, the burden of proof is upon you, since there may be an as of yet unknown causes (and likely are, which is the more rational assumption, considering that things like decay rates in some cases can be affected by factors such as environment, implying some effect upon whatever is causing it).

Actually, since theists are the ones who argue that everything has a cause and I’ve given an example of something that doesn’t seem to you have the burden of proof. And you talk about my supposed lack of logical reasoning. Sheesh! Speak for yourself.

And since you've asserted that I've made 'no argument,' the only argument left by your definitions is your own, therefore you've just admitted that the bad argument is your own. Freudian slip?

What??? I said quite plainly what I just repeated above:

The examples I cite do not seem to have causes. That’s the argument and you’ve failed to show how they might. The burden of proof is on you since there seems to be no cause. If there is show what it might be.

And now you admit your examples are non-arguments. Nice one. And no, an eternal universe isn't consistent with what we know of science: The 2nd law of thermodynamics firmly refutes that, since an eternal universe would have already hit heat death.

What in the world are you talking about? I was referring to your argument. Perhaps it is you who cannot read. I already referred to my paper where I refuted that claim about the second law.

Try reading in context.

You finally cite some kind of evidence for your claims but when you do you cite the completely shameless and discredited J.P. Holding. Classic! At least cite someone reliable for crying out loud.

The ultimate point is that prayer has not been found to work through many different studies. That’s been the entire point all along. Prayer is not answered and is a failed argument for the supernatural.

Not necessarily.

Oh, so now you quote the bible to show that god doesn’t always heal people. This is why it’s a waste of time to debate theists sometimes when you’re dealing with issues like this. When a prayer is answered, it’s the power of god! When it fails to work (as it does most often) it’s simply god’s will. These arguments could be thought of by a five year old. “Why didn’t your imaginary friend want to come out and say hello, Timmy?” his mother asks him. “Because he just doesn’t want to,” replied Timmy. Exact same childish reasoning.

All the experiments show prayer doesn’t do anything, except perhaps a mild placebo effect in some cases, but you get the exact same response from a sugar pill in controlled experiments!

No, I merely asked that. The fact that you'd jump to such a conclusion when I made no such assertion demonstrates that your reading comprehension and/or reasoning skills are substandard at best.

And I said if you think this then you don’t understand my argument and I said to go read it again.

Nor need I, since it's quite evident that prayer exists -I prayed just this morning! More evidence that you're arguing for utterly insane dogma. Beyond that, showing negative examples logically can't "prove" a universal negative (or universally disprove a concept) -a basic logical principle that you seem to have missed.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, of course when I’m constantly being insulted and talked down to by a little know-nothing I often do not write as clearly. By 'existence’ I meant the existence of an example of a prayer actually working. Of course people actually pray! I was talking about whether or not any affect was real.

Sorry, but you’re the laughing riot. You’ve failed to give any evidence against anything I said and make bald assertions with no evidence. Examples include the actions of the atoms must have some cause. Well prove it! That prayer does work. Prove it! That your god must be eternal. Why? How did you come to this conclusion? The second law refutes an eternal universe. Not necessarily and I even quoted a physicist as saying as much. The same guy, actually, who Craig cited.

So how many bald assertions have I counted in just this one reply? At least four. Hypocrite much?

This is a waste of my time. I’m obviously dealing with an immature, ‘wannabe’ apologist who doesn’t have a good grasp of either logic or the issues at hand. I’ve tried to be as civil as I can in the face of your childish ridicule but when you’re continually dealing with an attitude such as yours and you continually put forth claims for which you provide no evidence it’s hard to take you seriously.

Update

Well, the guy responded quickly this time and his claims got even more crazy...even claimed that I didn’t refute his second law argument when I told him exactly where it was and who I cited. On top of this and other blunders he calls me a liar. Sorry, I haven’t lied. Here is his wrong-headed reply:

@...of course when I’m constantly being insulted and talked down to by a little know-nothing I often do not write as clearly.

This still doesn't explain why your writing is so incomprehensible now.


@You’ve failed to give any evidence against anything I said

Except for where I did.


@I said and make bald assertions with no evidence

Besides fundamental logic, physical law, and credentialed scholarship.


@Examples include the actions of the atoms must have some cause. Well prove it! That prayer does work. Prove it!

Appeal to ignorance, and again addressing the issue as if prayer itself is what accomplishes things, which is beyond ignorant.


@How did you come to this conclusion?

Which I already answered, proving yet again that you're not reading.


@The second law refutes an eternal universe. Not necessarily and I even quoted a physicist as saying as much.

Necessarily, infinite time would result in inevitable heat death, as there exists no known or even vaguely feasible mechanism for reducing entropy within a closed system such as the material universe.


@So how many bald assertions have I counted in just this one reply? At least four. Hypocrite much?

One backed with inductive reasoning and sound logic, one backed by scriptural record, one that I plainly backed with actual scientific law, and one I asserted nothing about.


@you continually put forth claims for which you provide no evidence

Wrong: I clearly cited my scriptural source for God's eternality (making eternality part of the Christian definition of God), plainly did cite the second law of thermodynamics and inevitable heat death to destroy your eternal universe claims, and cited laws of fundamental logic (e.g. definitions of formal fallacies and the nature of proof) to disprove your fallacious arguments. Yet you spuriously claim I'm providing no evidence. It's thus plain to see from reading these past few posts that you're now resorting to outright dishonesty, as I've caught you in a direct lie.

I tried to be as calm as possible in my reply even though I really wanted to go off on him. The hilarious part is the first thing he said to me, how I have a comprehension problem. Wow... The hypocrisy dripping from that statement amazes me, especially when he was the one who totally ignored my answer to his second law argument. Here is my final reply:

It’s just like a person on a losing end of a discussion to call the other person names. You cite the bible as your proof...so are you a literalist? Either way, using the bible for proof of god’s eternal nature is not proof. Who wrote the bible? Who knows.... If that’s the case, then how do you even know what you’re reading is reliable? The archaeological evidence has shown that much of the bible is false. See ‘The End of Biblical Studies’by Avalos; ‘Who Wrote the Gospels?’ by Helms, and ‘The Bible Unearthed’ by Finkelstein and Silberman. Not only that but the bible also hugely contradicts itself, one example being the resurrection narratives and placing your claim about it being proof of the supernatural on unsteady ground. I've even written about the subject on my blog if you'd care to look. There is my evidence.

I told you where you could find my arguments and I also disproved your false claim about the second law and where to find the quote by the scientist (in my paper refuting Craig) but you ignore that entirely and call me a liar. Like I said before, you’re a waste of time.

Have a good life, alright? No hard feelings...you just need to read what both sides have to say instead of parroting what these (often wrong) authorities (like Craig) tell you.

David Aikman’s ‘The Role of Atheism in the Marxist Tradition’

I was able to upload author David Aikman’s 1979 dissertation and I have posted it at Scribd.com. Originally I copied it for my own personal use so I could read it more fully at a later date since the library I borrowed it from didn’t allow me to check it out for very long. But I figured that since some christian apologists like David Marshall were continually going on and on about how well researched this book was, and how well it allegedly proved the Communists committed their horrors due to atheism, I thought it would be useful to make it available to anyone who would like to critique the work instead of allowing people like Marshall to hide behind the fact that it can be difficult to come by. It doesn’t appear to be copyrighted, but if either Mr. Aikman or University Microfilms International requests for me to take down the document I will do so.

I hope you enjoy this interesting, though ultimately error ridden work (as far as Aikman’s conclusions go).



The Role of Atheism in the Marxist Tradition by David Aikman

William Lane Craig's Arguments for God Refuted

Considered one of the most famous and respected Christian apologists, William Lane Craig is often in atheists' cross-hairs and his arguments are often scrutinized both on the internet and in popular books, two examples being The Secular Web and Victor J. Stenger's 2008 book titled God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

Even though these arguments have been refuted by many others, and by those who have much more knowledge than I, I am always up for a challenge and so will do my best to show the illogical and unscientific nature of Craig's arguments. The source for the set of arguments I will tackle can be found in an article by Craig titled Five Arguments for God, currently hosted at The Gospel Coalition.

I've covered several of these arguments in the past but I'd like to take this opportunity to tackle these same arguments from such a respected philosopher as Craig, though for anyone who is familiar with my views, I do not think philosophy is the best method of getting at the truth.

With that, let's begin.

Craig begins his discussion by saying, "[L]et’s get clear what makes for a 'good' argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence."

And this is precisely part of Craig's problem. As I argued in my post Against the Gods, just because an argument is valid philosophically, and follows from it's premises, does not make it true. As even Craig says, the premise must have some solid evidence for it, and it naturally follows that if it doesn't, it should be discarded. Even Craig himself says,

But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true.

These are the very means by which I will demolish William Lane Craig's arguments.

1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

Craig begins this argument by saying:

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Now this is a logically airtight argument. That is to say, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if we don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if we have other objections to God’s existence. So long as we grant the three premises, we have to accept the conclusion. So the question is this: Which is more plausible—that those premises are true or that they are false?

He then attempts to justify the first premise, which is where things fall apart for Craig:

Consider first premise 1. According to premise 1, there are two kinds of things: things which exist necessarily and things which are produced by some external cause. Let me explain.

Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It’s impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist necessarily.

By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist necessarily. They exist contingently. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

So premise 1 asserts that everything that exists can be explained in one of these two ways. This claim, when you reflect on it, seems very plausibly true. Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods and come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You’d naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “Don’t worry about it! There isn’t any explanation of its existence!”, you’d either think he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

According to modern physics, however things can seemingly happen without cause. There are several things we observe that appear to have no cause. For example, "[w]hen an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus." [1]

Craig goes on to discuss his other premises, but given the fact that either they require no comment or they hinge upon the first premise, I don't think I need to go through the others. I've taken the very legs of this argument out from under Craig.

I will, however, point out something he said in his conclusion:

From these three premises it follows that God exists. Now if God exists, the explanation of God’s existence lies in the necessity of his own nature, since, as even the atheist recognizes, it’s impossible for God to have a cause. So if this argument is successful, it proves the existence of a necessary, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal Creator of the universe. This is truly astonishing! [emphasis mine]

Note the part of the quote I placed in italics. Craig, I feel, erects a strawman by arguing that atheists recognize "it’s impossible for God to have a cause." When have any atheists ever said such a thing? I certainly don't think this. And further more, I feel this statement about god not needing a cause is hypocritical because, as I noted in Against the Gods: "[Theologians] contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never articulate 'where' their god was or 'what' he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this universe." How can their god not need a cause, but the universe must?!

2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument Based on the Beginning of the Universe

Craig presents this argument as follows:

Here’s a different version of the cosmological argument, which I have called the kalam cosmological argument in honor of its medieval Muslim proponents (kalam is the Arabic word for theology):

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Once we reach the conclusion that the universe has a cause, we can then analyze what properties such a cause must have and assess its theological significance.

Now again the argument is logically ironclad. So the only question is whether the two premises are more plausibly true than their denials.

As I will prove below, his premises are not true. I also must point out how slyly he sets up the argument. After he argues for his conclusion (that the universe has a cause) he wants to convince the reader that the cause must have the attributes of his christian god. How convenient. As I'll show later, even if the universe did have a cause there are plausible naturalistic scenarios that explain how it may have happened.

Craig attempts to justify his first premise:

Premise 1 seems obviously true—at the least, more so than its negation. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic. Second, if things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

Craig argued, "Third, premise 1 is constantly confirmed in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes."

As I noted in Craig's first argument, despite what we think happens is not always accurate. As I said, ideas must be tested, and things can seem to happen without cause.

Craig next explains his second premise:

Premise 2 can be supported both by philosophical argument and by scientific evidence. The philosophical arguments aim to show that there cannot have been an infinite regress of past events. In other words, the series of past events must be finite and have had a beginning. Some of these arguments try to show that it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist; therefore, an infinite number of past events cannot exist. Others try to show that an actually infinite series of past events could never elapse; since the series of past events has obviously elapsed, the number of past events must be finite.

The scientific evidence for premise 2 is based on the expansion of the universe and the thermodynamic properties of the universe. According to the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe, physical space and time, along with all the matter and energy in the universe, came into being at a point in the past about 13.7 billion years ago (Fig. 1).


Figure 1: Geometrical Representation of Standard Model Space-Time. Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists.


What makes the Big Bang so amazing is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains, “the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Of course, cosmologists have proposed alternative theories over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin proved that any universe that is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Their proof holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe, which still eludes scientists, and applies even to any wider multiverse of which our universe might be thought to be a part. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Moreover, in addition to the evidence based on the expansion of the universe, we have thermodynamic evidence for the beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that in a finite amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for infinite time, the universe should now be in such a desolate condition. Scientists have therefore concluded that the universe must have begun to exist a finite time ago and is now in the process of winding down.

Again, as I've said already, just because Craig can't imagine an infinite universe doesn't mean it's impossible. Simply arguing that it's impossible without any proof is no argument. Second, Craig quotes Alexander Vilenkin from his 2006 book Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes and argues that because the universe cannot allegedly be past-eternal it implies a god, however, Vilenkin himself denies this interpretation just a few paragraphs after the statement quoted by Craig:

Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God […] So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena’s remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of Creation. [2]

Furthermore, via email I contacted Victor Stenger and asked him about the quote. He then contacted Alexander Vilenkin and others about this claim by Craig. I feel very privileged to have had a very small part in the correspondence with these scientists. During the discussions Mr. Vilenkin explains how, yes, the theorem does prove that the universe had a beginning, however, this conclusion is not written in stone. Given various "subtleties" the theorem could be negated.

Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question,

Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning?

Vilenkin replied,

No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.

Vilenkin added,

This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable. Small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities, so it would never make it to the expanding phase. That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe. [3]

In a follow up email to me Mr. Vilenkin made his position clearer,

[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is "yes". If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is "No, but..." So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

I further learned that the cyclic model of the universe (that I often propose by Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok, authors of Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang), according to Vilenkin, "cannot be a complete description of the universe" because "[i]n the model of Steinhardt and Turok, there are some particles whose histories can be extended to the infinite past. Such particles go through an infinite succession of expansion and contraction cycles. But, as our theorem requires, histories of most particles cannot be so extended and should reach the boundary beyond which the cyclic picture no longer applies." [3]

Despite this flaw in the theory I've often proposed, there are other scientists who posit that an eternal universe is possible, such as Anthony Aguirre whose theories seem compatible with Vilenkin's theorem. [4]

There are even perfectly natural scenarios for the creation of the universe. One such hypothesis is by Victor Stenger who proposes our universe came about by a process called quantum tunneling, which also takes into account an eternal past and future. [5]

After this failed attempt at disproving a possible eternal universe, Craig proposes that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents an eternal universe. He says,

Moreover, in addition to the evidence based on the expansion of the universe, we have thermodynamic evidence for the beginning of the universe. The Second Law of Thermodynamics predicts that in a finite amount of time, the universe will grind down to a cold, dark, dilute, and lifeless state. But if it has already existed for infinite time, the universe should now be in such a desolate condition.

It's odd that Craig would cite the second law of thermodynamics to prove his point, but at the same time ignore the first law, which states that "energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed." [6] Given the first law, it would appear to demolish Craig's entire Kalam argument about the universe needing a "cause." Not that the above arguments I've presented thus far haven't done this already.

I asked Mr. Vilenkin about the second law of thermodynamics and whether or not it would prevent an eternal universe, and the short answer is no but here was his full answer to me:

It follows from the second law that the total entropy (which is the total amount of disorder) in the universe grows with time. This seems to imply that ordered systems, like living organisms, should gradually get extinct. However, the theory of inflation, which is now the leading cosmological paradigm, offers a way out of this conclusion.

This theory suggests that much of the universe is filled with peculiar high-energy stuff called "false vacuum", which causes the universe to expand at an extremely fast rate. Here and there, "normal" regions like ours are formed, where the false vacuum decays and its energy goes to produce a hot expanding fireball of matter and radiation. This explosive end of inflation is what we call the big bang. In this scenario, inflation is eternal, and big bangs will forever continue creating "pocket universes" like ours.

Now, how does this help with the second law argument? The amount of disorder in each pocket universe grows, and in any given region the stars die and all life forms get extinct, but new pocket universes are constantly being formed. So, at any time there are some new pocket universes which still have relatively low entropy. Their existence does not contradict the second law, since the number of high-entropy pockets grows with time. [7]

In his conclusion Craig states the following:

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that’s to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,” and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions that were not previously present. Thus, a finite time ago a Creator could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. (By “choose” one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning.) By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

As I've shown, his god is clearly not the only way out of this "dilemma." Even the scientist and science he cites disagree with him about this. Instead of the solution having to be his god, as I noted above, even if created there are natural scenarios that are plausible and due to the lack of evidence for the supernatural, the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely. [8]

3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties

Craig sums up this argument thusly:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

As I've argued elsewhere, I do not see much of an objective morality in our world, but mostly a relative one. Relative to one's socialization, culture, time in which we live, etc. At one time, it was moral to own slaves; even christians justified it by citing the fall of man. Thomas Aquinas accepted slavery because we live in a fallen world, and because of this we must accept this injustice. [9]

This is a perfect example of my claim in my paper Against the Gods that just because all of your premises are true, it doesn't mean your conclusion is true, ie. god exists. This moral argument does nothing to prove god because there clearly is not any objective moral standard that we can call upon. I agree that most believe in doing the right thing and this is nearly universal, but this hardly points to a god. The argument fails because there has yet to be any evidence of a god, therefore, we can conclude that it was nature, ie. evolution and natural selection, that crafted our innate moral capacities in order to better survive in the world and in our formed communities.

Craig tackles the well-known Euthyphro Dilemma, but his argument is very weak; in my view completely unconvincing. In my opinion, Plato demolished the moral argument for god thousands of years ago and judging by one of the most skilled christian apologist's weak response to it, it seems that the Euthyphro Dilemma has yet to be solved.

Craig simply says,

The weakness of the Euthyphro Dilemma is that the dilemma it presents is a false one because there’s a third alternative: namely, God wills something because he is good. God’s own nature is the standard of goodness, and his commandments to us are expressions of his nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God. [emphasis in original]

Craig continues,

So moral values are not independent of God because God’s own character defines what is good. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial, and so on. His nature is the moral standard determining good and bad. His commands necessarily reflect in turn his moral nature. Therefore, they are not arbitrary. The morally good/bad is determined by God’s nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by his will. God wills something because he is good, and something is right because God wills it.

God is simply "good" by nature, and therefore he wouldn't command anything immoral? Right. Is that why many people have claimed to hear god speak to them, and they then commit horrible atrocities? One example is Dena Schlosser, who chopped her baby's arms off because god supposedly told her to. [10]

Other than peoples' supposed experiences with god (which can said to be either good or bad, depending on who you ask. According to one person, god told them to help the poor, with another, god told someone to kill another, or chop their baby's arms off), where can we attempt to determine god's nature? Well, nature itself, and as even Darwin saw, was oftentimes cruel with animals killing other animals for food. Even though Darwin never actually used this phrase, nature truly is "red in tooth and claw."

Another source is the bible. Unfortunately, this source doesn't seem to help Craig either because throughout the bible god is reported to have ordered the killing of multitudes of people. Examples include Leviticus 10:1-3; Numbers 31: 1-35, where god orders the murder of thousands of Midianites; 1 Samuel 6:19, the murder of seventy people simply for looking at a chest (the Ark of the Lord); Deuteronomy13: 5, among other verses, speak of killing those who do not believe or try to turn others away from god. There are many other examples besides these in the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament, while god greatly mellows out during this time period, his earthly incarnation in Jesus (if you believe in the Trinity as Craig does) does not always put forth some moral or righteous teachings. For example, Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 14:26, and Luke 12:51-53 all speak of dividing family and friends and how "a man will find his enemies under his own roof." . In Matthew 10:24-25 and Luke 12:47 Jesus apparently has no problem with slavery, and in these two passages, Jesus not only thinks that slaves are never above their master, but in a parable Jesus recommended that a slave be "flogged severely" if they don't follow their master's wishes. So much for family values and equality!

So far we've looked at all the sources we can find in order to determine god's true nature, and in both cases - in nature and the bible - we've seen that god is not always good, and sometimes commands people to do things that are clearly immoral, such as murder. Furthermore, Craig simply states that god is good without any proof whatsoever. He simply proclaims this as a fact, but this obviously isn't a fact. Therefore, it is wholly illogical to offer the argument that god's nature is good against the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Even though morality is relative, it does not mean we can do whatever we wish. We still have a responsibility to our friends and family and there are various secular moral systems that have been developed throughout history that can guide us through this morally relative world.

After all, even religion's morality is relative. It's dependent upon god's commands (there's the Euthyphro Dilemma again), and even differing and the same religions (through it's various sects) are conflicted and disagree when it comes to moral choices, so it's obvious that religion does not solve the problem of morality or prove god exists since god has yet to be proven, and there are much more plausible naturalistic reasons for our relativistic morality: evolution. There is a growing body of research that points in this direction. [11]

However, some argue that this is proof of a moral sense installed by god, but again, where is the proof? There is proof that evolution and natural selection has acted upon species and there is evidence of a moral sense. There is no evidence of a god, therefore, I'd go with the explanation that has evidence for it every time.

Furthermore, ala Craig's supposed rebuttal to the Euthyphro Dilemma, if god's nature is all good, then why does our moral sense contain both compassionate and selfish behavior? If god is all good, then that stands to reason that god wouldn't have placed a selfish morality inside his creations; only one of total compassion for everyone and everything. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that natural selection crafted our innate moral sense and empathy, which isn't perfect and is combined with our less desirable traits.

In conclusion, judging by the evidence at hand, and logic, the moral argument for god does not stand up.

4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning

Craig begins his discussion of the "fine-tuning" of the universe with the following:

We now come to the teleological argument, or the argument for design. Although advocates of the so-called Intelligent Design movement have continued the tradition of focusing on examples of design in biological systems, the cutting edge of the contemporary discussion concerns the remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life.

Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular). Rather during the last forty years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. This is known as the fine-tuning of the universe.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the constant that represents the force of gravity. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are put in just as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by less than a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and no living organisms of any kind could exist.23

For example, a change in the strength of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang’s low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 1010(123). Penrose comments, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010(123).”24 And it’s not just each constant or quantity that must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

So when scientists say that the universe is fine-tuned for life, they don’t mean “designed”; rather they mean that small deviations from the actual values of the fundamental constants and quantities of nature would render the universe life-prohibiting or, alternatively, that the range of life-permitting values is incomprehensibly narrow in comparison with the range of assumable values. Dawkins himself, citing the work of the Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees, acknowledges that the universe does exhibit this extraordinary fine-tuning.

Craig is obviously talking about intelligent design here, but in the last paragraph quoted he seems to me to be trying to distance the intelligent design argument from its religious connotations by saying that fine-tuning doesn't mean "designed," even though that's exactly what he's doing.

He further said in the beginning of his discussion:

Before we discuss this argument, it’s important to understand that by “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” (otherwise the argument would be obviously circular).

So what is Craig trying to do here? Even in his "proof" below he argues that this "fine-tuning" is the result of "design" so is Craig contradicting himself? It seems that way to me.

If Craig is trying to distance this obviously religiously motivated argument (intelligent design) from religion it is futile since even one of the famed advocates of intelligent design, William Dembski, has stated the following making the intelligent design movement's true motives clear:

Where is the work on design heading? [...] [S]pecified complexity is starting to have an effect on the special sciences. [...]

[D]espite it's [...]implications for science, I regard the ultimate significance of this work to lie in metaphysics. [...]

The primary challenge, once the broader implications [...] for science have been worked out, is [...] to develop a relational ontology in which the problem of being resolves thus: to be is to be in communion, and to be in communion is to transmit and receive information. Such an ontology will [...] safeguard science and leave adequate breathing space for design, but [...] also make sense of the world as sacrament.

The world is a mirror representing the divine life. The mechanical philosophy was ever blind to this fact. Intelligent design [...] readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory. (emphasis added) [12]

Craig lays out his argument:

Here, then, is a simple formulation of a teleological argument based on fine-tuning:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, it is due to design.

As Craig has said many times now, in order for an argument to be valid, it's premises must all be shown to be true and the second premise has not been proven. How does Craig know it cannot be due to chance? Has he cited any evidence to that effect? Of course not.

The fact is, if one varies many of these numbers a universe still is possible:

"Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simultaneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could construct cosmologies in which 'stars, planets, and intelligent life can plausibly arise.' Physicist Craig Hogan has done another independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions. And, theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star formation may have been." [13]

According to Gordon L. Kane, and associates, "In string theories all of the parameters of the theory - in particular all quark and lepton masses, and all coupling strength - are calculable, so there are parameters left to allow anthropic arguments" [...] [14]

Even Stephen Hawking's more recent studies seem to cast doubt upon the fine-tuning argument. "He proposed that our universe is much less 'special' than the proponents of the Anthropic Principle claim it is. According to Hawking, there is a 98 percent chance that a universe of a type as our own will come from the Big Bang. Further, using the basic wave function of the universe as a basis, Hawking's equations indicate that such a universe can come into existence without relation to anything prior to it, meaning that it could come out of nothing." [emphasis in original] [15]

Let's look at one of the examples of "design" that Craig cites:

The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe’s expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120.

However, according to Victor J. Stenger, it seems that the cosmological constant isn't "fine-tuned" at all:

For most of the twentieth century it was assumed that the cosmological constant was identically zero, although no known laws of physics specified this. At least no astronomical observations indicated otherwise. Then, in 1998, two independent groups studying supernovas in distant galaxies discovered, to their great surprise since they were looking for the opposite, that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. This result was soon confirmed by other observations, including those made with the Hubble Space Telescope.

The component of the universe responsible for the acceleration was dubbed dark energy. It constitutes 73 percent of the total mass of the universe. The natural assumption is to attribute the acceleration to the cosmological constant, and the data, so far, seem to support that interpretation.

Theorists had earlier attempted to calculate the cosmological constant from basic quantum physics. The result they obtained was 120 orders of magnitude larger than the maximum value obtained from astronomical observations.

Now this is indeed a problem. But it certainly does not imply that the cosmological constant has been fine-tuned by 120 orders of magnitude. What it implies is that physicists have made a stupid, dumb-ass, wrong calculation that has to be the worst calculation in physics history.

Clearly the cosmological constant is small, possibly even zero. This can happen any number of ways. If the early universe possessed, as many propose, a property called supersymmetry, then the cosmological constant would have been exactly zero at that time. It can be shown that if negative energy states, already present in the calculation for the cosmological constant, are not simply ignored but counted in the energy balance, then the cosmological constant will also be identically zero.

Other sources of cosmic acceleration have been proposed, such as a field of neutral material particles pervading the universe that has been dubbed quintessence. This field would have to have a negative pressure, but if it is sufficiently negative it will be gravitationally repulsive. [16]

Judging from this evidence, many parameters can be varied and a universe is still possible. Even if some of these universes did not result in our form of life, it is possible that another forms of intelligent life could flourish. After all, if the parameters were not as they were we wouldn't be here to discuss them anyhow! This hardly implies any sort of design.

Regardless, Craig attempts to back up his premises:

Premise 1 simply lists the three possibilities for explaining the presence of this amazing fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there’s some unknown Theory of Everything (TOE) that would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe’s not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It’s just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we’re the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. The question is this: Which of these alternatives is the best explanation?

Craig continues:

Premise 2 of the argument addresses that question. Consider the three alternatives. The first alternative, physical necessity, is extraordinarily implausible because, as we’ve seen, the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature. So, for example, the most promising candidate for a TOE to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. String theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10500 different possible universes governed by the present laws of nature, so it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary. With respect to this first alternative, Dawkins notes that Sir Martin Rees rejects this explanation, and Dawkins says, “I think I agree.”

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe’s being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they can’t be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Students or laymen who blithely assert, “It could have happened by chance!” simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in their driveway.

Again, just because something seems improbable doesn't make it so. After all, Craig is simply postulating an entity (god) that has no evidence going for it. Most of the "fine-tuning" has been shown to be false, or are misunderstandings. Due to my lack of knowledge of physics I will point the reader to other sources of information about more of these arguments. [17]

It seems that, according to the work by Victor Stenger, most of the fine-tuning is not that 'precise', unlike what Craig asserts.

After all, as Mr. Stenger noted in God: The Failed Hypothesis:

The anthropic argument for the existence of God can be turned on its head to provide an argument against the existence of God. If God created a universe with at least one major purpose being the development of human life, then it is reasonable to expect that the universe should be congenial to human life. Now, you might say that God may have had other purposes besides humanity. [...] [A]pologists can always invent a god for whom humanity is not very high on the agenda and who put us off in a minuscule, obscure corner of the universe. However, this is not the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, who places great value on the human being and supposedly created us in his image. Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?

If the universe were congenial to human life, then you would expect it to be easy for humanlife life to develop and survive throughout the universe. [18]

The rest of this section critiques arguments by Richard Dawkins (this article was originally a critique of some of Richard Dawkins' arguments in his 2006 book The God Delusion) and various other theories of the universe, such as the oscillating model of the universe and Lee Smolin’s evolutionary cosmology.

Again, due to my lack of in-depth knowledge of these theories I won't attempt to address Craig's claims, however, he does make an obvious mistake when critiquing the oscillating model of the universe.

Craig says,

Dawkins is apparently unaware of the many difficulties of oscillatory models of the universe that have made contemporary cosmologists skeptical of them. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, some theorists proposed oscillating models of the universe in an attempt to avert the initial singularity predicted by the Standard Model. The prospects of such models were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking’s formulation of the singularity theorems that bear their names. The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable. Since it’s impossible to extend space-time through a singularity to a prior state, the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems implied the absolute beginning of the universe. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems “led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”

As Victor Stenger has pointed out more than once, this is a classic mistake that has been made by Craig for quite some time. Hawking and Penrose's theory did not prove that there was a beginning or singularity when quantum mechanics is taken into account:

Hawking has repudiated his own earlier proof. In his best seller A Brief History of Time, he avers, "There was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe." This revised conclusion, concurred by Penrose, follows from quantum mechanics, the theory of atomic processes that was developed in the years following the introduction of Einstein's theories of relativity. Quantum mechanics, which also is now confirmed to great precision, tells us that general relativity, at least as currently formulated, must break down at times less than the Planck time and at distances smaller than the Planck length [...] It follows that general relativity cannot be used to imply that a singularity occurred prior to the Planck time and that Craig's use of the singularity theorem for a beginning of time is invalid. [19]

In his book The New Atheism Victor Stenger says:

Although the [argument from intelligent design by way of the biological sciences] has received greater public attention, more science-savvy theologians agree with most scientists that intelligent design, at least as it has been formulated so far, is a failure. Theologians are far more impressed by the fine-tuning argument [...] [20]

I firmly believe that as time goes on, just as with the science of evolution, these fine-tuning arguments will be seen as just as absurd as most claims of biological design are now as we gain more and more knowledge about our universe.

5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality

As I noted in my paper Against the Gods, I feel that the Ontological arguments do absolutely nothing to prove god, or even show through some form of logic that god exists but I will do my best to show that this argument, too, is illogical.

Craig makes use of Alvin Plantinga's version of the Ontological argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

Later on Craig argues,

The concept of a married bachelor is not a strictly self-contradictory concept (as is the concept of a married unmarried man), and yet it is obvious, once one understands the meaning of the words “married” and “bachelor,” that nothing corresponding to that concept can exist. By contrast, the concept of a maximally great being doesn’t seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima facie warrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.

I agree that the argument itself is sound if you accept that a great being exists, however, is the conclusion true? Is the premise even true? I'd say the premise, that it's possible that a maximally great being exists, could be true however what evidence is there for one? Plantinga seems to be begging the question here because he uses the term "possible" in his premise, but then assumes god's reality as a fact in his conclusion! Also, doesn't a premise have to be shown to be true before the conclusion can be shown to be true?!

Even earlier Craig himself stated,

But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one.

There are also more in depth rebuttals to this argument, such as one by Darrin at Debunking Christianity [21]

So far, Craig's other arguments have been found to be flawed so what are the chances that this form of mental gymnastics is even remotely true, and describes the real world? Slim to none.

In Craig's conclusion he says,

We’ve examined five traditional arguments for the existence of God in light of modern philosophy, science, and mathematics:

1. the cosmological argument from contingency
2. the kalam cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
3. the moral argument based upon objective moral values and duties
4. the teleological argument from fine-tuning
5. the ontological argument from the possibility of God’s existence to his actuality

These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions. Much more remains to be said and has been said. I refer you to the works cited in the footnotes and bibliography, should you wish to explore further. But I trust that enough has been said here to show that the traditional theistic arguments remain unscathed by the objections raised by the likes of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

I agree that Richard Dawkins did not do the best when critiquing all of the arguments for god, however, I don't think he did as bad as Craig asserts. After all, as I've shown, Craig himself made many logical and factual errors and since "we are rational people" then it follows that Craig's arguments for god are wrong and we should embrace the conclusion that these arguments do nothing to prove god exists.

Conclusion

I fully believe that I've (for the most part) thoroughly refuted William Lane Craig's arguments for god. The only set of arguments I feel I did not do the best on were the Teleological and Ontological arguments, which I admit are a bit out of my range of expertise, though I referred the reader to other, more reliable, sources on the problems with these particular arguments.

As I said at the end of the last section, due to Craig's many factual and logical errors it is incumbent upon any rational person to embrace the conclusion that if these arguments are seen to be faulty then it stands to reason that there is no evidence of god's existence. Given this fact, it shouldn't take much for a rational individual to further conclude that god is most likely non-existent.

Note: A christian who is obviously a fanboy of Craig’s seems to have taken offense at the fact that I demolished his idol’s arguments and tried his hand at refuting my counter-arguments. Though, as I show here and here, his attempts failed miserably, and he ended up putting his foot in his mouth several times, and completely misread and ignored much of what I had said throughout our discussions. This shows me that instead of wishing to deal with many of my arguments outright his true motive was to defend his idol William Lane Craig at all costs. Even if it means ignoring facts and arguments and completely misrepresenting what someone says.

Footnotes

1. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2007; 124

2. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes, by Alexander Vilenkin, Hill & Wang, 2006; 176-177

3. These email exchanges (at least the ones I was privy to) took place between 5-20-10 and 5-24-10 and are used with permission.

4. Two papers by Aguire that present his theories are:

Eternal Inflation, past and future, by Anthony Aguirre

Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal, by Anthony Aguirre - A huge thanks goes to Victor Stenger for emailing these two papers to me.

5. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Book, 2009; 171

6. First law of thermodynamics - accessed 5-23-10

7. Personal communication via email with Mr. Vilenkin, dated 5-23-10

8. Please read my two posts, Evidence Against the Supernatural, Parts One and Two

9. Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, by David Brion Davis, Oxford University Press, 2006; 55

10. Dena Schlosser on Wikipedia.org - accessed 5-24-10

11. Babies Provide More Evidence of Humans' Innate Morality

12. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, by Barbara Forrest & Paul A. Gross, Oxford University Press, 2004; 260-261

The following post also exposes the dishonesty and religious motivations of those who advocate intelligent design: Creationism's Trojan Horse with Barbara Forrest

Here is another good post: NCSE Video Exposes Intelligent Design

13. God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist, by Victor J. Stenger. Prometheus Books, 2007; 148-149

14. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 272

15. Ibid.; 272

16. The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2009; 95-96

17. Two books by Victor J. Stenger that address several of the fine-tuning arguments are : The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason and God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. I should note, too, that currently Mr. Stenger is working on a book as of this writing solely addressing the fine-tuning arguments. Keep an eye out for it.

18. God: The Failed Hypothesis; 154

19. Ibid.; 122

20. The New Atheism; 88

21. On Plantinga's Ontological Argument - accessed 5-25-10