Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are...That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. - John 17:11b, 21
Monday, July 18, 2016
Justin Brierley's simple, yet insightful, argument for the existence of God
Justin Brierley, the host of Premier Christian Radio's
show, Unbelievable? (link),
recently presented the following argument for the existence of God:
Related to this, I listened to the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig just the other day. In addition to the Kalam Cosmological argument, Craig presented the Teleological argument from cosmological fine-tuning. Aside from the multiverse hypothesis, it seems like a plainly devastating problem for non-theists, and undercuts naturalistic evolution.
Carroll made some good points. But more than not he made points that I didn't understand the relevancy of. Craig was asserting that the evidence of cosmology made God's existence more probable that it would be otherwise. He asserted that such evidence provided support for premises in a philosophical arguments that, while religiously neutral, had theistic implications. But Carroll was complaining that theism doesn't make predictions about the world, doesn't explain the mass of such and such a particle, or the density of dark matter. What does that have to do with anything? He also argued that theism isn't well-defined, but that even isn't relevant per se, though, it is a point worth considering in its own merit elsewhere. He was debating particular theists who held a particular view, and like his debate with Sam Harris, presented a view of God that is, while generalized, as in the view of God that Muslims, Jews and Christians would all agree on, a rough frame work, anyway. I felt that Craig didn't do as good as he has done in other debates, but I think he won. I'm still kind of agnostic as to whether Carroll was able to neutralize the boltzmann brain; I think he did not.
I think that Kalam cosmological argument is stronger, because it does not need any scientific evidence to prove it, since it has logical arguments against an actual infinite. Carroll didn't really respond to that except by mentioning a bunch of models (that he seemed to admit were false) that avoided a beginning. Craig was like, sure, but you have these theorms. Then Carroll was like, no you have these theorms. (I don't know who won the theorm throwing contest.) Craig was like my pal Jim Sinclair argued against that in Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology and Verlankin did with some of them as well.
I don't know if Carroll is right or Craig is about his view on Carroll's model. Carroll, while thinking it is wrong in some way, say that it has no beginning, only a place in the middle where entropy stops decreasing and starts increasing. Craig's like, sure, but you say that the arrow of time goes with entropy, so what you have are two universes, the other in no sense prior to our own. Carroll's made some point that I can't recall. So I'm not sure whose right there.
But I found Carroll's remark about the universe not needing a beginning if it is past finite as wrongheaded. It didn't come into being, it just has a first moment. What does that mean? Actually, I suppose since he believes in the tenseness theory of time that makes sense in his account. However, I don't and if it had a first moment and if temporal becoming is objectively real, then he said nothing to discount Craig's argument.
I also found his "advice" to religious people annoying (though it was not as condescending as the advice or arguments of other people, like Rosenberg or the New Atheists in general). Also I don't think he appreciates the implications of naturalism, namely, moral subjectivism (which is worthless, so really just amoralism and nihilism. He talks about how great life is because we are going to die. What was it for then? But if all you have is this duration of life, you better enjoy it if you can, since it will never come back (as far as you think).
Thanks much for bringing the debate between Carroll and Craig to my attention. I am downloading the debate as I write this comment, and will listen to it later today. For others who may be interested in this debate, it is available on You Tube via THIS LINK.
Sorry for the somewhat tardy response, but I have been quite busy with outdoor projects the last few days.
Now, as for the debate...I found it to be quite interesting, but 'over-my-head' in the sense that I am not up to date on current cosmology, which means that I was not able to weigh the current competing theories that were mentioned, and debated, by Carroll and Craig.
It has been a good 20 years since I last did any serious research into cosmology. I have a fairly substantial collection of cosmological works in my library, but they are dated, so most of the names discussed in the debate are unknown to me. I first became interested in cosmology after reading Robert Jastrow's, God and the Astronomers (1978), and stayed fairly current with the more popular treatments on cosmology into the early 90s; but since then, I cannot recall reading any cosmological works.
With that said, it sure seems to me that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. entropy) and the issue of intelligent design (i.e. 'cosmological fine-tuning') remain huge obstacles for cosmologists who attempt to explain our universe via strictly natural means. Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago (2004) that the high profile atheist, Anthony Flew, rejected his atheism for theism (deism along Aristotelian lines if I remember correctly), and this due primarily over the issue of intelligent design.
Anyway, after the summer season of guests and outdoor chores ends, I would like to delve into the current cosmological theories (and cosmologists) that Carroll and Craig included in their debate...
I've been wanting to read Flew's book; I read an interview he had in "God is Good, God is Great," but that's it. It's available on amazon for about $5, if I recall.
I'd be interested in reading on multiverse theories, since that seems to be the only out for naturalists; unless you deny fine-tuning, but even then you have the Kalam argument (and if they deny that, the Contingency argument). I think that Craig made a good point about Boltzmann brains, but I'm not familiar with any direct arguments against such ideas, nor would I be able to read anything but popular treatments of the issue. That and I've been busy with other topics, such as abortion.
In any event I think the endeavour of natural theology is still quite alive, and I'm inclined to accept about four or five of its arguments as persuasive.
Related to this, I listened to the debate between Sean Carroll and William Lane Craig just the other day. In addition to the Kalam Cosmological argument, Craig presented the Teleological argument from cosmological fine-tuning. Aside from the multiverse hypothesis, it seems like a plainly devastating problem for non-theists, and undercuts naturalistic evolution.
ReplyDeleteCarroll made some good points. But more than not he made points that I didn't understand the relevancy of. Craig was asserting that the evidence of cosmology made God's existence more probable that it would be otherwise. He asserted that such evidence provided support for premises in a philosophical arguments that, while religiously neutral, had theistic implications. But Carroll was complaining that theism doesn't make predictions about the world, doesn't explain the mass of such and such a particle, or the density of dark matter. What does that have to do with anything? He also argued that theism isn't well-defined, but that even isn't relevant per se, though, it is a point worth considering in its own merit elsewhere. He was debating particular theists who held a particular view, and like his debate with Sam Harris, presented a view of God that is, while generalized, as in the view of God that Muslims, Jews and Christians would all agree on, a rough frame work, anyway. I felt that Craig didn't do as good as he has done in other debates, but I think he won. I'm still kind of agnostic as to whether Carroll was able to neutralize the boltzmann brain; I think he did not.
I think that Kalam cosmological argument is stronger, because it does not need any scientific evidence to prove it, since it has logical arguments against an actual infinite. Carroll didn't really respond to that except by mentioning a bunch of models (that he seemed to admit were false) that avoided a beginning. Craig was like, sure, but you have these theorms. Then Carroll was like, no you have these theorms. (I don't know who won the theorm throwing contest.) Craig was like my pal Jim Sinclair argued against that in Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology and Verlankin did with some of them as well.
I don't know if Carroll is right or Craig is about his view on Carroll's model. Carroll, while thinking it is wrong in some way, say that it has no beginning, only a place in the middle where entropy stops decreasing and starts increasing. Craig's like, sure, but you say that the arrow of time goes with entropy, so what you have are two universes, the other in no sense prior to our own. Carroll's made some point that I can't recall. So I'm not sure whose right there.
But I found Carroll's remark about the universe not needing a beginning if it is past finite as wrongheaded. It didn't come into being, it just has a first moment. What does that mean? Actually, I suppose since he believes in the tenseness theory of time that makes sense in his account. However, I don't and if it had a first moment and if temporal becoming is objectively real, then he said nothing to discount Craig's argument.
I also found his "advice" to religious people annoying (though it was not as condescending as the advice or arguments of other people, like Rosenberg or the New Atheists in general). Also I don't think he appreciates the implications of naturalism, namely, moral subjectivism (which is worthless, so really just amoralism and nihilism. He talks about how great life is because we are going to die. What was it for then? But if all you have is this duration of life, you better enjoy it if you can, since it will never come back (as far as you think).
Hi Sean,
ReplyDeleteThanks much for bringing the debate between Carroll and Craig to my attention. I am downloading the debate as I write this comment, and will listen to it later today. For others who may be interested in this debate, it is available on You Tube via THIS LINK.
Grace and peace,
David
What did you think of the debate?
ReplyDeleteHello again Sean,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the somewhat tardy response, but I have been quite busy with outdoor projects the last few days.
Now, as for the debate...I found it to be quite interesting, but 'over-my-head' in the sense that I am not up to date on current cosmology, which means that I was not able to weigh the current competing theories that were mentioned, and debated, by Carroll and Craig.
It has been a good 20 years since I last did any serious research into cosmology. I have a fairly substantial collection of cosmological works in my library, but they are dated, so most of the names discussed in the debate are unknown to me. I first became interested in cosmology after reading Robert Jastrow's, God and the Astronomers (1978), and stayed fairly current with the more popular treatments on cosmology into the early 90s; but since then, I cannot recall reading any cosmological works.
With that said, it sure seems to me that the second law of thermodynamics (i.e. entropy) and the issue of intelligent design (i.e. 'cosmological fine-tuning') remain huge obstacles for cosmologists who attempt to explain our universe via strictly natural means. Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago (2004) that the high profile atheist, Anthony Flew, rejected his atheism for theism (deism along Aristotelian lines if I remember correctly), and this due primarily over the issue of intelligent design.
Anyway, after the summer season of guests and outdoor chores ends, I would like to delve into the current cosmological theories (and cosmologists) that Carroll and Craig included in their debate...
Grace and peace,
David
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI've been wanting to read Flew's book; I read an interview he had in "God is Good, God is Great," but that's it. It's available on amazon for about $5, if I recall.
I'd be interested in reading on multiverse theories, since that seems to be the only out for naturalists; unless you deny fine-tuning, but even then you have the Kalam argument (and if they deny that, the Contingency argument). I think that Craig made a good point about Boltzmann brains, but I'm not familiar with any direct arguments against such ideas, nor would I be able to read anything but popular treatments of the issue. That and I've been busy with other topics, such as abortion.
In any event I think the endeavour of natural theology is still quite alive, and I'm inclined to accept about four or five of its arguments as persuasive.