Trinity Radio on cosmologist Sean Carroll and ignoring reality

@19 EugeneS

Well, they claim that it is the molecules in your cortex that fool your consciousness (or whatever). That is their story. I am amazed at how this cheap stuff can sell as science today.

Me too! :)

Mind you, the scientific standards have degraded due to the solipsism of the evolution paradigm. You see things with your own eyes, and yet they say you should not believe your senses and even reasoning. And it is precisely this directive that undermines science long term.

Naturalism's Epistemological Nightmare:

Empirical verification presupposes epistemological realism— meaning that through sensation we know directly the exterior physical world around us. Natural science proclaims that it discovers the nature of the real physical cosmos, external to our brains or subjective selves. Yet, when we trace the optics and physiology of the sense of sight, we find ourselves entrapped in epistemological idealism -- meaning that we do not know external reality, but rather merely some change within our brains that we hope to be an accurate representation of the external world.

https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/ Truthfreedom

Truthfreedom

How can I have the “illusion” I have chosen to write this comment?

Well, they claim that it is the molecules in your cortex that fool your consciousness (or whatever). That is their story. I am amazed at how this cheap stuff can sell as science today. Mind you, the scientific standards have degraded due to the solipsism of the evolution paradigm. You see things with your own eyes, and yet they say you should not believe your senses and even reasoning. And it is precisely this directive that undermines science long term. A spectacular example of this pseudo-dogmatism is up the thread where Seversky claims that the Sun does not go round the Earth. I can think of mechanical scenarios where it would actually be easier or more convenient to describe motion of matter in the terrestrial reference frame than using the solar. After all, this sort of pictures are NOT an illusion. EugeneS

@Seversky

And I can’t make myself find males attractive by an effort of will in that way at all.

You could "will" to fund a scientific experiment to find some drug to make you find males attractive. An "indirect" will if you choose. Using your intellect. Truthfreedom

@Mike1962

This is were the rub is. How could humans come to possess the very idea of free will, if it doesn’t exist?

Exactly. This is the crux of the problem.

How could determined automatons come to be able to possess such an idea as this?

How can an automaton get to choose if he/she accepts to label him/herself as such? I am an "automaton" but I do not label myself as such. How can that be possible? Where does that degree of freedom come from? Truthfreedom

TruthFreedom: We first need a definition of that “free will”. This is were the rub is. How could humans come to possess the very idea of free will, if it doesn't exist? What is this thing that is an "illusion" that we have an idea about, and yet do not possess ourselves? If what the deniers say is true, "free will" really isn't an illusion, it is rather a meaningless term. Yet, we know it isn't meaningless. We can define it. The essence of it is the ability to create a chain of cause/effect that isn't determined by a previous cause. How could determined automatons come to be able to possess such an idea as this? We may not know how it works, but this is not a meaningless definition. And so, again, how could humans possess the idea, in a universe where it doesn't exist? We couldn't. Just like we would never invent the terms "sight" and "blind" in a universe without eyes, to borrow an analogy from C.S. Lewis. mike1962

Seversky

Peter’s triple denial of Jesus, even though he had been warned in advance that it would happen, is anecdotal evidence against the existence of free will.

Jesus was able to accurately see and report on a future event. He did this several times. He said that he would be killed and then rise from the dead. If the one case with Peter's denial is evidence against free will, the prophecies of Jesus are evidence of his divine nature and that God exists. Silver Asiatic

@Bob O'H:

If free will is an illusion,

Is it? We first need a definition of that "free will". Truthfreedom

Seversky

It was “really really really obvious” for a long time that the Sun went around the Earth because that’s what it looked like. Now, we know it doesn’t.

It is really really really obvious to a high school student that this is actually not the right answer. The right answer is that all motion is relative. The Sun is moving relative to the Earth, i.e. in a reference frame whose origin coincides with the Earth's center of mass. EugeneS

seversky:

...but I note that the Biblical story of Peter’s triple denial of Jesus, even though he had been warned in advance that it would happen, is anecdotal evidence against the existence of free will.

In your very limited mind, anyway. ET

WHAT is the “illusion” of free will, please? How can I have the “illusion” I have chosen to write this comment?

If free will is an illusion, then you only have the illusion that you chose to write the comment: the reality would be that you could not have done anything different. Bob O'H

If I contract an engineer, am I really contracting an "illusionist"? 1. Engineers design things. 2. According to some loons, "design" is an "illusion ". Conclusion: I am contracting someone to perform me an "illusion"! Hahaha. Truthfreedom

Seversky states,

Sev: "It was “really really really obvious” for a long time that the Sun went around the Earth because that’s what it looked like. Now, we know it doesn’t."

How do we know that? As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” Stephen Hawking – The Grand Design – pages 39 – 2010

There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the heliocentric model over the earth centered model. As Einstein himself noted,,,

“One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K’ [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K’ [the Earth], whereby K’ [the Earth] is treated as being at rest.” –Albert Einstein, quoted in Hans Thirring, “On the Effect of Distant Rotating Masses in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, 29, 1921 “If one rotates the shell *relative to the fixed stars* about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, *that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around*” –Albert Einstein, cited in “Gravitation”, Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545. “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.,,, If all the objects in space were removed save one, then no one could say whether that one remaining object was at rest or hurtling through the void at 100,000 miles per second” Historian Lincoln Barnett – “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” – pg 73 (contains a foreword by Albert Einstein)

In fact, according to 'anomalies' in the CMBR,, a earth centered model of the universe is to be favored over other models:

Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

Seversky you go on to ask me a logical question as to if I thought you had the free will to not be a heterosexual, or if people tempted by homosexuality have the free will necessary to not act on those homosexual desires, yet you failed to realize that if I had no free will, as atheists believe, I could not answer that question in a logical manner

Sam Harris's Free Will: The Medial Pre-Frontal Cortex Did It - Martin Cothran - November 9, 2012 Excerpt: There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html

In other words, logic and rationality itself is undermined in the atheist's denial of free will. Sev then states

Quantum mechanics tells us about what happens at the quantum level of reality and that does not necessarily have any bearing in what happens at our macroscopic level of reality.

That's the standard reply from atheists, yet, "the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales."

LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD - Vlatko Vedral - 2011 Excerpt: experiments now leave very little room for such processes to operate. The division between the quantum and classical worlds appears not to be fundamental. It is just a question of experimental ingenuity, and few physicists now think that classical physics will ever really make a comeback at any scale.,,, Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, with­out a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. http://phy.ntnu.edu.tw/~chchang/Notes10b/0611038.pdf

Sev then states,

What Zeilinger appears to be saying is that the outcome of any measurement will be delimited by what we choose to measure and how we choose to make our measurement. The specific outcome of the measurement will be one of a range of probabilities which can be represented as a wave-form but which we cannot know in advance. This is some way from claiming that we, in some way, create reality by our act of observation because it runs into the obvious objection of what were we observing before reality came into existence?

So what? I did not claim that we 'create reality". I claimed that we get to choose what type of reality gets presented to us and that ability to choose what type of reality gets presented to us is perfectly consistent with what we experience on the macro level of how we live our everyday lives. Sev then states,

I don’t claim, as an a/mat, that free will is an illusion

Then you are not being consistent within your atheistic materialism. You have heard of the law of non-contradiction have you not? Atheistic materialism, and/or methodological naturalism, itself is what claims that we are merely 'meat robots' that have no free will. Your 'chosen' atheistic philosophy could care less what you personally want to believe to the contrary. As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, pointed out, the 'trouble' with quantum mechanics is that it "turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,"

The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – January 19, 2017 Excerpt: The instrumentalist approach,, (the) wave function,, is merely an instrument that provides predictions of the probabilities of various outcomes when measurements are made.,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11 Thus the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans. We may in the end have to give up this goal,,, Some physicists who adopt an instrumentalist approach argue that the probabilities we infer from the wave function are objective probabilities, independent of whether humans are making a measurement. I don’t find this tenable. In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,, http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/466-17/QuantumMechanicsWeinberg.pdf

You keep repeating Peter's denial of Christ as if that supports you position, yet in the very same passage where Peter denied Christ, Christ Himself tells us exactly why Peter was unable to do what he wanted to do:, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Matthew 26 40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Sev claims that,

But I believe that I have chosen reality over the comforting delusion of the Christian God.

Yet the truth of the matter is that you, in your rejection of God, have chosen to believe in a world of illusions rather than in reality:

Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory. Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Sev then states,

Like so many judgements, that depends on context. If you are a wealthy individual living in California, one of the richest states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, life is probably pretty good. If you were one of the wretched millions herded into gas chambers in World War II, probably not so much.

And yet, as pointed out above, people are leaving California because of the oppressive policies of Democrats, and moreover, the 'wretched millions' were herded into gas chambers in World War II precisely because Darwinian Ideology had gained a stranglehold on Germany's government, i.e. the Nazi's!

From Darwin to Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A

In other words Sev. the very examples you yourself cited for reality supposedly being 'bad' were brought about because of your very own secular atheistic ideology. How you can consistently make such statements that directly undermine the arguments that you are trying to make, I have no idea. I know that you are not that dumb. You owe a big time apology to your very own intellect for constantly insulting it like you do with your self-defeating arguments. bornagain77

How can I have the “illusion” I have chosen to write this comment? Same way you fink fings what can be retro-engineered were designed, when they only seem to have been designed ! Axel

WHAT is the "illusion" of free will, please? How can I have the "illusion" I have chosen to write this comment? Truthfreedom

Bornagain77 @ 4

Au Contraire! The fact that the reality of free will is “really really really obvious” to normal people and yet Atheistic Naturalists deny the “really really really obvious” reality of free will,,

It was “really really really obvious” for a long time that the Sun went around the Earth because that's what it looked like. Now, we know it doesn't.

You ask anyone leaving California if they freely chose to leave California to live in another state and they will tell you “Of course I am freely choosing to leave California to live in another state”, Yet atheistic naturalists deny that they are freely choosing to leave California to live in another state. They claim that they are merely deterministic ‘meat robots’ who are under the illusion that they freely chose to leave California to live in another state.

This depends on what degrees of freedom we are talking about. People are free to leave California if they choose because there are no laws or regulations to prevent them. They also appear to be free to choose to leave or stay and I also feel I have the same freedom. But, given what we now know about how much mental processing goes on outside the boundaries of the conscious mind, to what extent is that true? For example, I am heterosexual but that was not - and is not - a free choice. I did not sit down one day and ask myself, "Hmmm, do I want to be straight or gay or something in between? Yup, I think I'll be straight!" That's not what happened. What happened was that I began to notice and react to girls in a way that I hadn't before and I didn't react to boys in the same way. And I can't make myself find males attractive by an effort of will in that way at all. There was no free will involved and I suspect that is true for the majority of other human beings, including you. And if we don't have free will in that context, in what other situations is it limited or not there at all? Which is why I ask about the extent to which we may have free will.

Moreover, besides that claim from atheists being completely insane, that claim also disagrees with what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the fundamental nature of reality.

Quantum mechanics tells us about what happens at the quantum level of reality and that does not necessarily have any bearing in what happens at our macroscopic level of reality.

As Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

What Zeilinger appears to be saying is that the outcome of any measurement will be delimited by what we choose to measure and how we choose to make our measurement. The specific outcome of the measurement will be one of a range of probabilities which can be represented as a wave-form but which we cannot know in advance. This is some way from claiming that we, in some way, create reality by our act of observation because it runs into the obvious objection of what were we observing before reality came into existence?

What is not consistent with either quantum mechanics, or with life as it is lived by everyone in their everyday lives, is the Atheistic Naturalists claim that free will is an illusion.

I don't claim, as an a/mat, that free will is an illusion but I note that the Biblical story of Peter's triple denial of Jesus, even though he had been warned in advance that it would happen, is anecdotal evidence against the existence of free will.

All I can do Seversky is hope that you will choose reality over your delusion of Atheism. In other words, all I can do is hope that you will chose God over your imaginations:

But I believe that I have chosen reality over the comforting delusion of the Christian God. Of course, being just an ordinary human being, I might be wrong but, so far, I haven't seen anything to change my mind.

Reality is not nearly as bad as you seem to think Seversky!

Like so many judgements, that depends on context. If you are a wealthy individual living in California, one of the richest states in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, life is probably pretty good. If you were one of the wretched millions herded into gas chambers in World War II, probably not so much. Seversky

@4 Bornagain77

Shoot, even Sean Carroll himself admitted in the video that he must live his life as if he had free will (even though he supposedly knows better than everyone else that it is an illusion).

As if he had free will? WHEN did he see "real" free will so now he can COMPARE them both, the "real" and the "illusory"? Because if there is not "real" free will: The COMPARISON "real" / "illusory" DOES NOT MAKE SENSE Truthfreedom

Sev states:

BA77: Thus, by default, the definition of Atheistic Naturalism must be; “Making up your own reality as you go along.” Sev: Which is pretty much what you are arguing happens at the quantum level. The outcome of an observation is dependent on the observer.

Au Contraire! The fact that the reality of free will is "really really really obvious" to normal people and yet Atheistic Naturalists deny the "really really really obvious" reality of free will,,

THE ILLUSION OF FREE WILL - Sam Harris - 2012 Excerpt: "Free will is an illusion so convincing that people simply refuse to believe that we don’t have it." - Jerry Coyne https://samharris.org/the-illusion-of-free-will/

,,, and yet Atheistic Naturalists deny the "really really really obvious" reality of free will,,, and that denial in and of itself is what conflicts with life as it is really lived by everyone, (including atheists) and their denial is also what conflicts with what quantum mechanics is revealing to us about the fundamental nature of reality. For instance, as to how everybody, including atheists, live their everyday lives,,,,, People freely choose where they want to go and live, For instance, many people are currently choosing to leave California and live in other states because of oppressive Democratic policies.

California Exodus: More people moving out of state than in for 1st time since 2010 - Jan. 2020 https://fox6now.com/2020/01/06/california-exodus-more-people-moving-out-of-state-than-in-for-first-time-since-2010/

You ask anyone leaving California if they freely chose to leave California to live in another state and they will tell you "Of course I am freely choosing to leave California to live in another state", Yet atheistic naturalists deny that they are freely choosing to leave California to live in another state. They claim that they are merely deterministic 'meat robots' who are under the illusion that they freely chose to leave California to live in another state.

“You are robots made out of meat. Which is what I am going to try to convince you of today” Jerry Coyne – No, You’re Not a Robot Made Out of Meat (Science Uprising 02) – video https://youtu.be/rQo6SWjwQIk?list=PLR8eQzfCOiS1OmYcqv_yQSpje4p7rAE7-&t=20

According to Atheistic Naturalists, they had no more say in leaving California than a leaf blowing in the wind had a say in what path it may take. This is completely insane! Moreover, besides that claim from atheists being completely insane, that claim also disagrees with what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the fundamental nature of reality. Just as we can, on the macro level, choose what reality is presented us, say the state of California or some other state, on the micro level of quantum mechanics we find that we also have a say in what type of reality gets presented to us. As Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

“The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.” Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:17 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4C5pq7W5yRM#t=437

Thus, the findings of quantum mechanics are perfectly consistent with life as it is actually lived by everyone in their everyday lives on the macro level, in that we get to choose what type of reality we want to live in, be it California or some other state, and in quantum mechanics or decisions influence what type of reality gets presented to us. Again, that is perfectly consistent! What is not consistent with either quantum mechanics, or with life as it is lived by everyone in their everyday lives, is the Atheistic Naturalists claim that free will is an illusion. Shoot, even Sean Carroll himself admitted in the video that he must live his life as if he had free will (even though he supposedly knows better than everyone else that it is an illusion). In fact, I hold that it is impossible for atheists to live their lives consistently as if Atheistic Naturalism were actually true and as if they truly had no free will. Even Richard Dawkins himself reluctantly conceded that it would be ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic naturalism were actually true:

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins: What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don’t feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to live as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism – November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

All I can do Seversky is hope that you will choose reality over your delusion of Atheism. In other words, all I can do is hope that you will chose God over your imaginations:

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Reality is not nearly as bad as you seem to think Seversky! :) bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 1

Thus, by default, the definition of Atheistic Naturalism must be; “Making up your own reality as you go along.”

Which is pretty much what you are arguing happens at the quantum level. The outcome of an observation is dependent on the observer. And if there is a multiverse, it seems unlikely we get to choose which one we are born into, any more than we can choose which time and which place we get born into this one. Seversky

the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof. (if we are talking science) SPIRAL cosmological redshift and hypothesis is the most parsimonious design, thus the lesser claim. no dark energy, dark matter, fudge required, no multiverse. the entire universe approximates the visible universe, no deep-time dependent claims that fight entropy, basic science only. it all adds up, study, fairly consider, and disseminate to replace the far weaker science (SPIRAL even predicts the prevalent CR of distant starlight and the overall increase of that CR w/ distance, rather than have to react to it, as does the current SCM .. using just ordinary matter.) , and far greater claim, that is SCM-LCDM, for the new standard cosmological model. www.academia.edu/36013854/SPIRAL_Cosmological_Model_snapshot Pearlman

as to:

"In all cases his (Sean Carroll's) advice seems to be, ignore what is really really really obvious, and affirm naturalism."

Thus, by default, the definition of Atheistic Naturalism must be; "Making up your own reality as you go along." A definition which happens to goes hand in hand with the word 'delusion':

de·lu·sion noun an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

bornagain77