Discussion of Reasonable Faith by William Lane Craig

[showmeproof]

So Wiki-monkey, what happens if the universe doesn't expand, at the right speed, for example, if it expands too fast or too slow? What prevents it from doing that?

Why would you pose this question in this form? I understand looking at data and saying hey why is x like that. However, you seem to be insinuating that something must be, and is, intentionally keeping the universe from expanding too fast or too slow. Why the insinuation of intention? We know that if it were expanding to slow it would end in a big crunch and galaxies would not have formed. We know that if it expanded too quickly galaxies would not have formed. Why is intention needed for a universe which we observe?

[showmeproof]

Having even one verifiable flaw, destroys a theory.

Obviously it would be rather useless or meaningless to try and debate interpretations of theories that are known to have flaws.

This is false. Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold for really really tiny (quantum) particles, nor does it work with objects moving close to the speed of light. Yet, we use Newton's laws every day. Models are used to mathematically explain a set of data. Flaws can narrow the number of observations that will be explained by the model, but it doesn't make the model false in all accounts. Where new models arise that better explain the data we use them. Take note that we do not use the cumbersome Quantum mechanics to explain the trajectory of 95mph fastball hit by a 32oz white ash bat with a speed of 110...Newton's laws work just fine for that.

[CalmingFlow]

Well, you are missing the point, either that or you are in denial of it. Thoughts are not "things", they are the mental activity of the physical brain itself, nor are they, as mental activity, distinct and separable from the physical brain itself but are in and of it. Mental activity is derived of the brain in the same sense that a tree is derived of the physical universe, it has its origin in it, but is not created by it, they are of the same nature. That is not a creation, they are one and the same thing. If you disagree, then prove to me that your imagined pink elephant with red lipstick and green poke-a-dots on its back with a blue tail has any real existence, and that its existence is distinct and separable from the physical brain itself.

To prove that two things are distinct, one must demonstrate that one has a property that the other does not.


Can a brain exist without mental activity? Yes

Can mental activity exist without a brain? No


It seems, that one has a property that the other does not. Therefore they cannot be the same thing by necessity.

[CalmingFlow]

A flaw in a theory does not necessarily spell its destruction. The particle theory of light as proposed by Newton could not explain diffraction for instance and was replaced by the wave theory. Yet in the early 20th century, the particle theory was revised with quantum mechanics and is the standard theory.

Problems, or 'flaws,' do not make or break a theory or hypothesis. Their predictability and usefulness is determined by falsification through objective methods of investigation. contemporary theories in physics and cosmology tend to morph and change over time to give better explanations for the nature of our physical existence

This is false. Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold for really really tiny (quantum) particles, nor does it work with objects moving close to the speed of light. Yet, we use Newton's laws every day. Models are used to mathematically explain a set of data. Flaws can narrow the number of observations that will be explained by the model, but it doesn't make the model false in all accounts. Where new models arise that better explain the data we use them. Take note that we do not use the cumbersome Quantum mechanics to explain the trajectory of 95mph fastball hit by a 32oz white ash bat with a speed of 110...Newton's laws work just fine for that.

If one tries to use a theory to debate a proof, one flaw in the theory does indeed remove it from discourse; a proof isn't allowed to have any flaws, and neither can you invoke flawed material to refute it.

[Adam]

If one tries to use a theory to debate a proof, one flaw in the theory does indeed remove it from discourse; a proof isn't allowed to have any flaws, and neither can you invoked flawed material to refute it.

Only if you're talking about strict logical inference, deduction. For anything else, whether history, biology, or physics, we're dealing with induction and at most asymptotic approximation, as has already been explained to you by everyone else. Even in pure mathematics we can deal with probabillities. You're out of order.

[Adam]

Why would you pose this question in this form? I understand looking at data and saying hey why is x like that. However, you seem to be insinuating that something must be, and is, intentionally keeping the universe from expanding too fast or too slow. Why the insinuation of intention? We know that if it were expanding to slow it would end in a big crunch and galaxies would not have formed. We know that if it expanded too quickly galaxies would not have formed. Why is intention needed for a universe which we observe?

Thanks for pointing this out. I missed that. So LPOT was making sense this time, that there must be a God to keep things working right. More likely, however, there had to be a God to make things in proper order in the first place.

[JimL]

To prove that two things are distinct, one must demonstrate that one has a property that the other does not.


Can a brain exist without mental activity? Yes

Can mental activity exist without a brain? No


It seems, that one has a property that the other does not. Therefore they cannot be the same thing by necessity.

You don't seem to be getting my point Calming Flow, mental activity, unlike the brain, is not a "thing", it does not have existence period, it is the electrochemical property of the brain itself, so of course if the brain is not functioning, or, if there is no brain, then there is no mental activity. So, the reason that there is no mental activity without a brain is because mental activity, in the sense that you are defining it, as a distinct and existing thing, does not exist. It is a negative assertion on your part, or in other words a mere belief to say that it does have existence unless you can prove that assertion by proving that your imagined pink elephant with red lipstick and green poke-a-dots with a blue tail has any actual existence.

[lilpixieofterror]

Why would you pose this question in this form? I understand looking at data and saying hey why is x like that. However, you seem to be insinuating that something must be, and is, intentionally keeping the universe from expanding too fast or too slow. Why the insinuation of intention? We know that if it were expanding to slow it would end in a big crunch and galaxies would not have formed. We know that if it expanded too quickly galaxies would not have formed. Why is intention needed for a universe which we observe?

Because, for the universe to be destroying itself and re-creating itself, you would need to explain how it is capable of re-creating itself, in the same way, every single time. Basically, how could he push God out and say that it's impossible, when he doesn't know:

1. What is causing the universe, to be capable of re-creating itself, without destroying itself?
2. How does showing something existed before the big bang, prove God doesn't exist?

Basically, he's trying to pull a lot of conclusions, out of a little data. The best the skeptic could honestly say is that he doesn't know what cause the universe, to exist, but he doesn't believe it's good. Therefore, it is foolishness to attack the Christian as being 'ignorant' or 'stupid' for not agreeing with you.

[little_monkey]

If one tries to use a theory to debate a proof, one flaw in the theory does indeed remove it from discourse; a proof isn't allowed to have any flaws, and neither can you invoke flawed material to refute it.

Obviously you have no clue how science works, and you should leave that to the scientists. Try inductive reason, scientific method, probability theory, measure theory as a start, maybe you will make more sense.

[CalmingFlow]

Only if you're talking about strict logical inference, deduction. For anything else, whether history, biology, or physics, we're dealing with induction and at most asymptotic approximation, as has already been explained to you by everyone else. Even in pure mathematics we can deal with probabillities. You're out of order.

Look at the first post on page 2;

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ne-Craig/page2

little_monkey introduced a theory as a rebuttal to Craig

If finding a flaw in the theory doesn't block the rebuttal, what else is there?

[CalmingFlow]

Obviously you have no clue how science works, and you should leave that to the scientists. Try inductive reason, scientific method, probability theory, measure theory as a start, maybe you will make more sense.

You just so happen to be speaking to someone who has actually made discoveries in science!

I have discovered that the Casimir force, Coulomb force, Ampère force, and the refractive index of space are not constants!

What discoveries have you made?

[CalmingFlow]

You don't seem to be getting my point Calming Flow, mental activity, unlike the brain, is not a "thing", it does not have existence period, it is the electrochemical property of the brain itself, so of course if the brain is not functioning, or, if there is no brain, then there is no mental activity. So, the reason that there is no mental activity without a brain is because mental activity, in the sense that you are defining it, as a distinct and existing thing, does not exist. It is a negative assertion on your part, or in other words a mere belief to say that it does have existence unless you can prove that assertion by proving that your imagined pink elephant with red lipstick and green poke-a-dots with a blue tail has any actual existence.

Any particular thought (neural networking pathway) is not an intrinsic property of the brain.

Particular neural networking pathways come into existence.... They are things.

[little_monkey]

You just so happen to be speaking to someone who has actually made discoveries in science!

I have discovered that the Casimir force, Coulomb force, Ampère force, and the refractive index of space are not constants!

What discoveries have you made?

You're about 300 years behind, but not to discourage you, keep plugging.

BTW, the more technical terms are: Coulomb force = electrostatic force, Casimir force = Casimir effect, there is no such thing as Ampere force, but it's Ampere's force law, and the refractive index is different for different material, but for space it is CONSTANT.

[CalmingFlow]

You're about 300 years behind, but not to discourage you, keep plugging.

300 years behind on what?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Casimir force is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Coulomb force (give a particular charge) is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Ampère force (give a particular current) is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out such a thing as outer space galactic medium and interstellar medium refraction!?

BTW, the more technical terms are: Coulomb force = electrostatic force, Casimir force = Casimir effect, there is no such thing as Ampere force, but it's Ampere's force law, and the refractive index is different for different material, but for space it is CONSTANT.

How does one have a force law without there being a force?

Since the refractive index is defined as 1/√(μ0*ε0) or 1/√[{(Fm*r)/(I1*I2)}*{(Fc*r^2)/(e1*e2)}]

It follows that if the Ampère force and Coulomb force AND/OR the distance parameter (r) are not constants, then neither is the refractive index!

And beyond that, there is the galactic medium, interstellar medium, as well as the stratified quasi-atmospheres of every body in space, necessarily producing refraction via "gradient-index optics"!

[little_monkey]

300 years behind on what?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Casimir force is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Coulomb force (give a particular charge) is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out that the Ampère force (give a particular current) is not a constant?

Has anyone ever pointed out such a thing as outer space galactic medium and interstellar medium refraction!?





How does one have a force law without there being a force?

Since the refractive index is defined as 1/√(μ0*ε0) or 1/√[{(Fm*r)/(I1*I2)}*{(Fc*r^2)/(e1*e2)}]

It follows that if the Ampère force and Coulomb force AND/OR the distance parameter (r) are not constants, then neither is the refractive index!

And beyond that, there is the galactic medium, interstellar medium, as well as the stratified quasi-atmospheres of every body in space, necessarily producing refraction via "gradient-index optics"!

Oh boy, did you ever pass high school physics? Have you taken a course in calculus, matrix algebra, diffferential geometry? Look, you're way over your head. You don't have a grasp of the most elementary stuff. You're not going to impress me if this is what you're trying to do. Instead you are making a fool of yourself..

First off, forces are not meant to be constant. Ever heard of Netwon's law, F = ma? Forces are going to vary wildly, depending on what kind of force ( gravity, electromagnetic, weak or strong force). In order to study forces, you need to get familiar with Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism, and use such thing as the least action principle or Poisson's bracket. Secondly, the index of refraction doesn't belong in that group as it is not a force but a ratio of the velocity of light as it travels from one medium to another. It's not something fundamental, and can be easily explained with Maxwell's equations.