PDA

View Full Version : New Debate Coming up



seer
02-19-2014, 06:39 AM
http://www.greerheard.com/

A number of different events that will be streamed live.

rogue06
02-21-2014, 09:09 AM
Thanks for the heads up :thumb:

shunyadragon
02-21-2014, 09:31 AM
Will follow up and watch! :popcorn: But do not expect anything new.

Soyeong
02-21-2014, 10:10 PM
I do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.

Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists.

seer
02-22-2014, 03:05 AM
I do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.

Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists.

Yes and Carroll stuck to this idea that something, like the universe, could appear without a cause. And theism is farfetched? What was also clear is that though there are about 17 models out there for an eternal universe and none of them work, and that according to Carroll. He even admitted that his model was pure speculation. What was also clear was that there is just no hard evidence for a multiverse or any universe besides ours. Over all I thought both Carroll and Craig did well. This was much better than the Ham, Nye debate. I think the discussion with Robin Collins, Carroll and Craig this morning is going to be interesting.

shunyadragon
02-22-2014, 03:44 AM
As far as I know, no cosmologist claims 'something can come from nothing.' Carroll made clear physics and cosmology arguments for undermining Craig's claims that the universe necessarily had a beginning. Craig was out of his league, and is not competent arguing physics and cosmology. There is a clear misunderstanding of what scientists call 'nothing.'

Carroll made it clear that you cannot take individual 'sound bits' out of context from speeches, and writings to support the assertion that the greater cosmos had a beginning. At best you can say scientist 'do not know' as he pointed out in a quote from Guth, but the greater cosmos could very well be eternal.

shunyadragon
02-22-2014, 04:25 AM
Dr. Carroll described the role of 'models' of the multiverse in a similar way I did when I started the previous thread 'Models and theories about the origins of the universe or greater cosmos.' as follows:

"The development of working models and theories of our universe began with the [the Theory of Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics] and the 'Big Bang' model, and it is a work in progress as our knowledge of physics and cosmology increases. It was the first where Physics and Cosmology connected to come up with the theory of origins. Since various models have been developed, some have been found flawed or weak in their potential to explain the origins of our physical existence. Others have more explanatory power and at present explain our origins better. All these models represent 'work in progress' and will likely be the basis for improved models in the future. One long standing problem from the layman's perspective is that many believe that one of these models and theories explains the origins, like the 'Big Bang', in a similar way that other scientific discoveries in the macro world explain how things work, such as medical discoveries. The fact is none of the models definitively explain the origins of our universe or the greater cosmos. The following article is a good example of the problem of the limits of the explanatory power of any one model or theory of origins:


"This is the most detailed challenge yet to the 40-year-old orthodoxy of the Big Bang. Some researchers go further and envision a type of infinite time that plays out not just in this universe but in a multiverse—a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics and its own life story. Still others seek to revise the very idea of time, rendering the concept of a “beginning” meaningless.

All of these cosmology heretics agree on one thing: The Big Bang no longer defines the limit of how far the human mind can explore."

shunyadragon
02-22-2014, 07:19 PM
I do find it a bit odd when people claim something can come from nothing. I think WLC brings up an excellent point that there is no property of nothing that would cause it to only apply to universes coming from nothing, so it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't come into being. I think why there is something rather than nothing is an important question, so Carroll saying the universe was in a different category of causality was unconvincing.

First, scientists do not claim that 'something came from nothing.' The 'nothing' that cosmologists refer to is the 'no boundary' greater cosmos Hawking described as timeless and spaceless Quantum world of Multiverse, and not philosophical nothing. The multiverse cannot be subject to Newtonian causality. .


Carroll wanted to treat theism as a model that made predictions that could be tested. While he did admit that it was possible for there to be model of a universe that was created by God, I wish he had gone into more details about that looked like because I don't see how a model could lead someone to the scientific conclusion that God exists.

Listen carefully to what Carroll describes as a possible theism model. I believe he indicated that the assumptions and argument would be theist assumptions and argument for the origins of the universe, and not cosmological, as to the nature of the origins of our physical existence..