The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[shunyadragon]

In another thread Adrift proposed that; 'I've heard from skeptics that Dr. William Lane Craig wins his debates because he "Gish-Gallops".' This accusation is too vague and nebulous to do justice to the skeptics and in particular scientists objections to the apologetic arguments of William Lane Craig, and other apologists like; Alvin Plantinga and Whitehead on how science is used in their arguments. The purpose of this thread is to address specific objections by skeptics, in particular science, concerning the argument by these apologists.

The foundation of my argument is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God. Basically the claims of William Lane Craig and other apologists cannot be falsified using scientific methods.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument will be the first addressed where the proposed support by science is misused by William Lane Craig and other apologists.

The basic Kalam argument:

William Lane Craig proposes the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, described as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

Okay assumption if you can prove or falsify using scientific methods that a 'thing' began to exist.

(2) The universe began to exist; Therefore:

This assumption is dependent on what the proposed belief syllogism defines as 'the universe.' If one defines 'the universe' as our particular universe, or all possible universes and multi-verses than the argument is plausible that they have beginnings, but if the existence of our 'physical existence' is defined as the possible Quantum World that would contain all possible universes and multiverses than the argument fails completely, because there is not any falsifiable theories nor hypothesi for any absolute beginning of any 'thing.' The bottom line is absolute beginnings of any concept of our physical existence cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and becomes a philosophical/theological assumption in the argument.

(3) The universe has a cause.

I can easily agree that 'the universe' has a cause, but the claim that it has a cause other than a natural one cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and therefore it remains only a possible philosophical/theological assumption for the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

The problem of 'actual infinities' in this argument and related arguments will be addressed in a separate post.

Anal grammarians are welcome to check my English.

[MaxVel]

The foundation of my argument is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God.

I'm not sure that this is true. Could you clarify- what exactly do you mean by 'Methodological Naturalism', what assumptions does it make?

Basically the claims of William Lane Craig and other apologists cannot be falsified using scientific methods.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument will be the first addressed where the proposed support by science is misused by William Lane Craig and other apologists.

The basic Kalam argument:

William Lane Craig proposes the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, described as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

Okay assumption if you can prove or falsify using scientific methods that a 'thing' began to exist.

Craig uses a modification of this premise

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

(2) The universe began to exist; Therefore:

This assumption is dependent on what the proposed belief syllogism defines as 'the universe.'

In the above cited article, Craig says:

For the universe comprises all contiguous spacetime reality.

[The Pixie]

I'm not sure that this is true. Could you clarify- what exactly do you mean by 'Methodological Naturalism', what assumptions does it make?

Craig uses a modification of this premise

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In the above cited article, Craig says:

For the universe comprises all contiguous spacetime reality.

I think that last bit is the issue here. Evidence points to our contiguous spacetime reality having a begining at the Big Bang, but we have no idea what exists outside and before that. It could be God, it could be some kind of multiverse. There is certainly no reason to suppose that whatever it is is conscious or intelligent of gives a hoot about us.

[37818]

I think that last bit is the issue here. Evidence points to our contiguous spacetime reality having a begining at the Big Bang, but we have no idea what exists outside and before that. It could be God, it could be some kind of multiverse. There is certainly no reason to suppose that whatever it is is conscious or intelligent of gives a hoot about us.

Whether a succession of causes without a first cause. Or a unique cause uncaused and of itself. In either case an uncaused existence behind either being so.

[The Pixie]

Whether a succession of causes without a first cause. Or a unique cause uncaused and of itself. In either case an uncaused existence behind either being so.

Yes. The question is whether that uncaused thing was God or not. I have never seen anything reasonable to argue either way; we really have no idea what is outside our universe, what rules apply.

[Kbertsche]

The foundation of my argument is based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism, which is neutral to philosophical/theological arguments for the existence of God. Basically the claims of William Lane Craig and other apologists cannot be falsified using scientific methods.

I agree; WLC is making a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. His argument is consistent with science and is supported by science, but it is not BASED on science.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument will be the first addressed where the proposed support by science is misused by William Lane Craig and other apologists.

The basic Kalam argument:

William Lane Craig proposes the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, described as follows:

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

Okay assumption if you can prove or falsify using scientific methods that a 'thing' began to exist.

This is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Hence it is not necessary that this claim can be proved or falsified using scientific methods.

(2) The universe began to exist; Therefore:

This assumption is dependent on what the proposed belief syllogism defines as 'the universe.' If one defines 'the universe' as our particular universe, or all possible universes and multi-verses than the argument is plausible that they have beginnings, but if the existence of our 'physical existence' is defined as the possible Quantum World that would contain all possible universes and multiverses than the argument fails completely, because there is not any falsifiable theories nor hypothesi for any absolute beginning of any 'thing.' The bottom line is absolute beginnings of any concept of our physical existence cannot be falsified by scientific methods, and becomes a philosophical/theological assumption in the argument.

Again, WLC's argument is philosophical, not scientific. But our current theories of cosmology support his arguments. Studies and theories of the Big Bang point to an absolute beginning of all of space-time about 13.7 billion years ago. This includes an absolute beginning to all fundamental particles and forces.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not sure that this is true. Could you clarify- what exactly do you mean by 'Methodological Naturalism', what assumptions does it make?

Methodological Naturalism cannot include philosophical/theological beliefs and assumptions that cannot be objectively falsified by the objective methods in terms of as theories and hypothesis

Craig uses a modification of this premise

1'. If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

Change in wording in this case does not change the problem. 'IF' here adds nothing. This does negate the possibility that our universe and all possible universes have 'beginnings' of natural causes.

In the above cited article, Craig says:

For the universe comprises all contiguous space time reality.

If he is proposing that our universe comprises all of the continuous space/time reality that exists presents a problem, because first it cannot be falsified, and science has determined objectively that the Quantum World does not compromise a space/time reality.

[Kbertsche]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;359077]

... science has determined objectively that the Quantum World does not compromise a space/time reality.

What do you mean by this? Can you summarize the objective scientific evidence that supports your statement?

[37818]

Yes. The question is whether that uncaused thing was God or not. I have never seen anything reasonable to argue either way; we really have no idea what is outside our universe, what rules apply.

Yes, that is the issue. [BTW the Hebrew's Name of God, typically translated as "the LORD," can be interpreted, translated as "Self-Existent."]

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean by this? Can you summarize the objective scientific evidence that supports your statement?

Quantum zero-point energy has no continuous time nor space.

The quantum fluctuation is a temporary (momentary) change in the amount of energy in space/time

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or quantum vacuum fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that for a pair of conjugate variables such as position/momentum or energy/time, it is impossible to have a precisely determined value of each member of the pair at the same time. For example, a particle pair can pop out of the vacuum during a very short time interval.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Whether a succession of causes without a first cause. Or a unique cause uncaused and of itself. In either case an uncaused existence behind either being so.

As per the subject of this thread this cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods.

This does not negate the possibility of an ultimate infinite natural cause based on Natural Laws.

[shunyadragon]

I agree; WLC is making a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. His argument is consistent with science and is supported by science, but it is not BASED on science.

There is no reason to assume that this view is supported by science, because it ultimately remains that the present knowledge cannot support an absolute beginning of anything.

This is a philosophical claim, not a scientific one. Hence it is not necessary that this claim can be proved or falsified using scientific methods.

Yes indeed this ia philosophical claim. It cannot be falsified by science and therefore science cannot be used to support this. Science can only falsify beginnings as have a natural cause.

Again, WLC's argument is philosophical, not scientific. But our current theories of cosmology support his arguments. Studies and theories of the Big Bang point to an absolute beginning of all of space-time about 13.7 billion years ago. This includes an absolute beginning to all fundamental particles and forces.

No, not all models for the beginnings of our universe and all possible universe support an absolute beginning of all the particles. There are currently viable cyclic and bounce models for the beginning of our universe. I will cite these in a later post.

Careful of claiming absolute beginnings here even if all the particles absolutely began in the Big Bang. According to the present knowledge of science they did not begin from nothing. Our universe began as a singularity formed in the Quantum World.

Again, claims absolute beginnings from 'nothing' cannot be falsified by objective scientific methods. As far as science is concerned only beginnings from previous existing material has been falsifiable by scientific methods.

[The Pixie]

Yes, that is the issue. [BTW the Hebrew's Name of God, typically translated as "the LORD," can be interpreted, translated as "Self-Existent."]

That is an interesting claim about it being "translated as "Self-Existent.""

1. Can you provide any evidence of that?

2. Do you think that in any way indicates that the cause of this universe is God? If so, how?

[Kbertsche]

Quantum zero-point energy has no continuous time nor space.

What do you mean by this (having no continuous time nor space)? It is a form of energy; mass-energy exists in time and space. So how can you claim that this form of energy "has no continuous time nor space"? Can you back up this claim with scientific or philosophical evidence?

The quantum fluctuation is a temporary (momentary) change in the amount of energy in space/time

Yes, I understand quantum fluctuations. They exist for a short, but finite amount of time. (You seem to imply that the time is infinitesimal, which is incorrect.)

Many now want to attribute our entire universe, and all 13.7 billion years of its existence, to a "quantum fluctuation". This would be theoretically possible ONLY if the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero (to a ridiculous number of decimal places). This is unreasonable, IMO.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Kbertsche;359096]What do you mean by this (having no continuous time nor space)? It is a form of energy; mass-energy exists in time and space. So how can you claim that this form of energy "has no continuous time nor space"? Can you back up this claim with scientific or philosophical evidence?

Yes, I understand quantum fluctuations. They exist for a short, but finite amount of time. (You seem to imply that the time is infinitesimal, which is incorrect.)

You apparently do not understand quantum fluctuations, because they are indeed infinitesimal moments in time, and not continuous in a time/space relationship.

This reference described Quantum fluctuations in very simple language; The Origins of the Universe for Dummies

https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...20time&f=false

Many now want to attribute our entire universe, and all 13.7 billion years of its existence, to a "quantum fluctuation". This would be theoretically possible ONLY if the total mass-energy of the universe is almost exactly zero (to a ridiculous number of decimal places). This is unreasonable, IMO.

I am not sure who this 'many' is that you imply believe what? I do not believe that any of the present model propose that our universe began from a single Quantum fluctuation. There are a number of models for the beginning of our universe, you need to be specific if you are going to reference one or the other as possible or impossible.