VIDEO: The Feb 1, 2013 Craig- Rosenberg debate: “Is Faith in God Reasonable?”

_{kairosfocus
February 2, 2013

Philosophy, Video, worldview

1}_{Categories
Philosophy
Video
worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Thanks to Bornagain 77’s diligence, we are able to bring to UD’s readership, this important debate on the reasonableness (or otherwise) of theistic faith in an era dominated by Science, with Scientism an influential worldview rooted in the prestige of science:

(NB: The debate proper begins at 4 10 mins 27 48 seconds in, with the moderator’s introduction.)

Let us watch, let us reflect, let us discuss. END

PS: I have also put up the Dawkins-Williams Jan 31st 2013 debate here. (HT: SG.)

PPS: I think it worthwhile to add this David Wood video on the argument from reason:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX-QtEo2fI

Comments

Mung: According to the New Testament the sign of Jonah are the reported words of Jesus and seeing that the NT is dedicated attempt at making the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus appear true it is hardly likely that the authors would knowingly cut and paste into gospels things that clearly contradict that . God in his mercy has said to us in his last revealed guidance the Quran that the previous scriptures though corrupt contain truths that have remained in them go against Jewish and Christian claims.JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
11:04 AM
11
11
04
AM
PDT}

My view is what I call "transcendental naturalism", the core idea of which is that transcendentally-specified roles have naturalistically-specifiable role-players. By "transcendental specification," I mean an inquiry into the basic sorts of cognitive capacities (and attendant incapacities) that any being must have in order to enjoy the sorts of cognitive experiences. The goal of transcendental reflection is an inventory of the basic roles, conceptual and non-conceptual, that must be filled in order for there to be cognitive experience, along with an account of their basic relations between these roles. (One can think of transcendental reflection as basically a reverse-engineering problem.) By "naturalistically-specifiable," I mean that, to quote one of my favorite lines from Richard Rorty, "telling the story of how we got from the apes to the Enlightenment with as few discontinuities as possible" (which, of course, does not mean none). In other words, (1) the sorts of structures and processes that carry out the tasks of cognitive experience in rational minded animals should be roughly similar to those that produce cognitive experience in non-rational minded animals; (2) the structures and processes that produce cognitive experiences in minded animals, both rational and non-rational, should be roughly similar to structures and processes in non-minded animals (if there are any) and/or non-minded life-forms (if there are any).Kantian Naturalist_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

If you really believed in Jesus properly you would listen to his SIGN OF JONAH which he gave as the ONLY sign when asked of him by Children of Israel.
This is a bit hard to swallow coming from someone who denies that the sign was ever given to them.Mung_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

I agree with you, Joe. But in case you are interested, here is another better video on the subject of the Shroud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEvRqrhudUAxel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

You're quite wrong about the Catholic church shouting it from the roof tops, Joe, although it might well publicise vigorously in the light of these recent findings. But you have to understand that our faith, in both our religions, is not merely a matter of credence, (still less, credulity). Christ's contemptuous dismissal of the request for a sign to those people was based on the fact that he did not want followers who were only impressed by worldly, if supernatural, power. That is the reason why he reserved the performance of almost all his greatest miracles for his closest disciples. Nevertheless, just before his crucifixion, he raised the already-putrifying body of Lazarus from the dead, yet still, instead of even acting rationally, if cynically, the religious authorities became all the more determined to have Jesus killed. Likewise, they paid the soldiers guarding the tomb to make up a 'cock and bull' story about how Jesus body was removed by interlopers. Anyway, it's a vast subject, Joe, and I feel sure you are not ready to accede to evidence of any kind. No disrespect to you, but no one changes their core world-view in a day. As regards the Moslem world, I believe, like that of the Christian and post-Christian West, it very heterogenous. As a rule, my default position is never, but never, to accept the news concerning geopolitics given out by our Western media, which is basically the propaganda arm of the atheist billionaires. However, the terrorism adds further confusion, both the asymmetric fighting in the Middle East, at least prior to the inception of Russia's involvement, and the nation-state mega-terrorism of nation invaders, whatever the disavowals, in pursuit of the countries' natural resources. Today, I read that one Christian civilian is being murdered a day, I expect much of it in Africa. Yet, a few weeks ago, I read on a Catholic blog, Vatican Insider, that an African cardinal stated that the right picture is not always being given out; and that, in fact, more Moslems had been murdered by Christians there. So, it's very difficult to get any kind of accurate handle on the reality. The Israeli Palestinian situations seems intractable. The Palestinians have been suffering immensely for decade after decade, yet they, with their supporters have equally been intent on the destruction of Israel. My feeling is that the Palestinians have been used as pawns by the Arab world and anti-Zionist Westerners, and would otherwise have prospered in an economic alliance with Israel. Anyway, I'm sure you would have other ideas on that subject, but it is too vast to tackle here, and in any case, intractable, imo.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Axel: I have said that if anyone wants to debate me concerning comparatibpve religion they can do so on my email given above. Because what will happen is that we will end up spoiling the thread and then I will get blamed for it and I'm fed up with that.JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

Lke I said if the Science was conclusive on the matter the Roman Catholic Church would have declared it so and they have not. And talking about the Science how about applying it to the World Trade Center buildings that were clearly controlled demolished ? Or is it more convenient for you to be selective in this case?JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT}

A piece of cloth... That's unworthy of you, Joe. Even of someone with as slight a respect for science as I have.Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

If you really believed in Jesus properly you would listen to his SIGN OF JONAH which he gave as the ONLY sign when asked of him by Children of Israel . The miracle of Jonah was he was expected to die during his ordeal from being thrown into the sea to the time he spent in belly of the whale but lived so Jesus was expected to die and by many thought to have died but..... You can work it out yourself . But if you want to pin your faith on the controversies surrounding a piece of cloth that's you choice.JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

Axel: Were the Roman Catholic Church confident of its authenticity they would have been shouting it from the rooftops a long time ago. The fact that they don't and their continued silence speaks volumes......JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

JoeM, seeing that permanent smile/smirk on William Lane Craig's face, as he goes on stage, sits down, approaches the podium, leaves the building, and doubtless when he sleeps th sleep of angels*, must drive a stake through the hearts of his atheist opponents. By the way, Joe, you should watch this video on the Shroud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEvRqrhudU *What a messenger!Axel_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

KN, I'm sure you think you understand your view, but as 'your view' of reality does not comport to reality in any way shape or form that I can tell, what have you really understood? You have understood nothing in my book but in so far as you actually buy into your view cognizantly explaining reality, I hold that you have only been successful in deceiving yourself, and others who think you are reasonable, into thinking you have actually understood any truthfulness about reality!bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

The best argument for the atheist is 'the problem of evil and suffering ' in the world which have its answers in theology whether to your satisfaction or not is another matter. But at the end of the day human beings are limited in their wisdom and God as the 'All Wise' is not so it would illogical fallacy to claim then that because we don't understand it the wisdom of God is not there. Even so it boils down to the 'The logic of submission' and a choice between accepting ones limited and error prone emotions or submitting to am 'All - Wise' God who who we will be held accountable to at the time of death and Day of judgement. It is clear to me and any wise , objective and intelligent person using their free will what the correct choice is ......JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT}

Hi everyone, For those who may be looking for a thoroughgoing critique of Rosenberg's naturalism, please see the collection of articles at Rosenberg round-up, by the Thomist philosopher Edward Feser. It's of excellent quality, and it hits the nail on the head, every time.vjtorley_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

KN: You are entitled to your views but if you are trying to justify a materialistic or atheistic position via Science and Reason it is demonstrably clear that it is not possible.JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77, I understand my view perfectly well, and so do a lot of other people I interact with. If you don't understand my view, that's not really my problem.Kantian Naturalist_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

In re: Nullasallus @ (23):
Is there anything irrational or unreasonable about choosing a life in which hope, love and forgiveness are jokes, and you can do whatever you want so long as you avoid punishment? Is there anything irrational or unreasonable about feeding some very vicious and terrible desires? Under a materialist atheism, of course.
"Irrational," maybe not. "Unreasonable," yes. If someone is devoid of empathy, lacks all sense of justice and fairness, it would be impossible, I conjecture, to get that person to adopt the moral point of view through reason alone. But I submit that no one who has empathy, care, concern, a sense of justice, etc. would wish that it were otherwise. (No one would want to become a psychopath.) This is not to say that reasoning plays no role at all in moral experience, but just that ethical reasoning is deeply informed by certain kinds of affective responses to other people - empathy, care, love, etc. -- and that the job of reason is to shape these affective responses in the right ways. Ethical goodness is love informed by reason.
I think the particular failure of atheism being cited here is only drawn out all the more when someone tries to suggest that ‘atheism == “hope, love and forgiveness being found in relationships with each other and…”‘. It’s too Hallmark Card. Too obviously ‘man, we better make this sound as nice as possible, all reality aside’. Which contrasts with the other common atheist stances where one of the points of pride of atheism is supposed to be the boldness of embracing a view that’s so dismal, hope-lacking, where love and forgiveness are exposed as very petty, even meaningless things, etc.
I think that nihilistic atheism is implicitly committed to the same presuppositions as the theism it supposedly opposes. The theist is someone who implicitly identifies the worthiness or value of our ideals with their eternality -- "the best things are the eternal things" (James) -- it is as if the theist believes that if love and hope are not eternal, then they are not worthy of being affirmed at all. Deep at work here there is a conviction that goodness ought not be fragile>. If love, hope, and forgiveness were merely things of this world, then would be fragile, fleeting, temporary -- and they ought not to be -- and so the theist affirms that they are eternal, enduring, immune to corruption. The nihilistic atheist is someone who says that if our highest moral (also aesthetic and intellectual) values were worthy of being affirmed at all, then they would have to be eternal and unchanging, have some sort o transcendent guarantee, but they since they don't actually have that, they aren't worthy of being affirmed at all. The nihilist and the theist accept the same conditional; it's just that one infers modus ponens and the other infers modus tollens. Hence: to deny the conditional itself is to be beyond both theism and atheism. It is to believe that acknowledging the fragility of goodness is fully consistent with affirming the value of goodness. It is to believe that acknowledging that my entire existence will end when my life ends -- that the death of the body is the annihilation of the soul -- is no justification for depravity, wickedness, or even just being an insensitive jerk.
More than that, the ‘brute fact’ talk seems irrational itself. So we just decide that some facts have no explanation, no further inquiry required – the very things that theism is often falsely accused of advocating – but that’s okay, because to assume otherwise would diminish atheism as a rational choice/conclusion? It’s atheism’s “God did it”.
No one just "decides" that something is a brute fact -- whether a fact is 'brute' or not depends on where the inquiry takes us. Now, I do think that both theism and naturalism each have their "brute facts" beyond which explanations cannot go. But then again, at no point here in any of these discussions have I ever claimed that naturalism is more reasonable than theism. I have only claimed that it is not less reasonable.Kantian Naturalist_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Apologies , I meant to say that little wonder that Dawkins refuses to debate the likes of Dr Craig and others .JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

Kn: its not that there is no need to respond to Dr Craig's arguments its simple a the case that those argument are rock solid and irrefutable . And like I said earlier little wonder that he refuses to debate Dr Craig , Adam Deen and Hamza Tzortzis to name a few. Hamza Tzortzis and Adam Deen for eg have debated that bitter and nasty piece of work atheist Dan Barker and in my opinion demolished him completely .JoeMorreale1187_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

KN, but of course,,, as you hold a position that I don't think anyone, including you, truly understands, how could be otherwise! :)bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

I'm quite familiar with Craig's criticisms of naturalism, and I didn't learn anything new about his positions from the debate. As Rosenberg pointed out, Craig just re-presented the positions he's presented elsewhere. As for the cogency of those criticisms: I don't recognize anything that I accept in what Craig calls "epistemological naturalism" or "metaphysical naturalism", so I don't feel any particular need to respond to those criticisms.Kantian Naturalist_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

KN, I thought of you when I saw this following portion of the debate: At about the 1 hour mark of the video, which I have 'current time' linked here: Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84&feature=player_detailpage#t=3641s Dr Craig stated that Dr. Rosenberg blurs together: Epistemological Naturalism: which holds that science is the only source of knowledge and, Metaphysical Naturalism: which holds that only physical things exist as to, Epistemological Naturalism, which holds that science is the only source of knowledge, Dr. Craig states it is a false theory of knowledge since,,, a). it is overly restrictive and b) it is self refuting Moreover, Epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism.,, In fact a Empistemological Naturalist can and should be a Theist, according to Dr. Craig, because Metaphysical Naturalism is reducto ad absurdum on (at least) these eight following points: 1. The argument from the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states implies non-physical minds (dualism), which is incompatible with naturalism 2. The existence of meaning in language is incompatible with naturalism, Rosenberg even says that all the sentences in his own book are meaningless 3. The existence of truth is incompatible with naturalism 4. The argument from moral praise and blame is incompatible with naturalism 5. Libertarian freedom (free will) is incompatible with naturalism 6. Purpose is incompatible with naturalism 7. The enduring concept of self is incompatible with naturalism 8. The experience of first-person subjectivity (“I”) is incompatible with naturalism KN, you really have to watch Dr. Craig's presentation to get a full feel for how insane the metaphysical naturalist's position is. ,,, And KN I don't know if you watched that portion of the video for you said you only watched an hour of the video (and this part starts at the 1 hour mark), but KN, if you did watch this what say you to this, IMHO, devastating critique of naturalism?bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

As to KN's king with no clothes 'quantum foam' conjecture: GRBs Expand Astronomers' Toolbox - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space. http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExpandAstronomersToolbox Moreover Vilenkin's proof covered quantum models: Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say. They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/bornagain77_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

F/N: I think we may profitably look at Herrick's Contra Carrier: Why Theism is Needed to Make Sense of Everything (2006), as a discussion of inference to best explanation (as opposed to "proof") and on the subject of the necessary being behind a contingent world. Observe the contrasted cites:
No necessary being can explain existence; contingency is not an illusion, an appearance which can be dissipated; it is absolute; and consequently perfectly gratuitous. Everything is gratuitous, that park, this town, and myself. When you realize that, it turns your stomach over and everything starts floating about. -- John-Paul Sartre, Nausea (1938), p. 188 That there is a contingent being actually existing has to be discovered by experience, and the proposition that there is a contingent being is certainly not an analytic proposition, though once you know, I should maintain, that there is a contingent being, it follows of necessity that there is a necessary being. -- Father Joseph Copleston, debate with Bertrand Russell, BBC Radio (1948)
A grounding necessary being that explains a contingent cosmos [including things like its evident fine tuning for the sort of life we enjoy, and the further evident facts of unity in diversity [which brings up Math as a unifying logical force], moral government that we find ourselves under and the experiential reality of millions who report that they have met and been transformed by God [ranging from our own Peter J of the Shetland Isles and our own Gil D on up], is a serious issue, and one that should not be brushed aside. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

JM: I am asking you to cease from seeking to divert this thread, and I am asking you to take a serious look at the evident Anti-Semitism, anti-Christian bigotry, conspiracism, resort to turnabout false accusations, apparent glee in the perceived eternal fate of lost souls [we should mourn the lost souls, not exult over them . . . ], and more that are all too appallingly evident once your talking points were challenged on the merits. And BTW, with all due respect, your latterday prophet Isa (onlookers, cf here and here, on: side-kick to the end of days world-conquering Mahdi who starts out with the black flag armies from the direction of Khorasan, and who is involved in breaking all crosses, "converting" Christians to Islam [there is some stuff that suggests fakery or manipulation of gnostic documents or the like to make the historical foundations of the Christian faith seem suspect . . . ], slaughtering all pigs and in the anticipated latterday massacre of the Jews . . . ) is patently more akin to the false prophet of Rev 16 than to the Jesus of History and the anticipated returning Christ of Christian eschatology. Any further attempts to divert and/or poison threads that I own will be responded with a request for you to cease from commenting in such threads. Good day, sir. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: Bradley has a useful summary on the ingredients (fr Sect D my usual note linked through my handle). Requisites for the sort of atom based life we see include:
Order to provide the stable environment that is conducive to the development of life, but with just enough chaotic behavior to provide a driving force for change. Sufficient chemical stability and elemental diversity to build the complex molecules necessary for essential life functions: processing energy, storing information, and replicating. A universe of just hydrogen and helium will not "work." Predictability in chemical reactions, allowing compounds to form from the various elements. A "universal connector," an element that is essential for the molecules of life. It must have the chemical property that permits it to react readily with almost all other elements, forming bonds that are stable, but not too stable, so disassembly is also possible. Carbon is the only element in our periodic chart that satisfies this requirement. [--> Si does not allow good enough chaining, and Ge is worse, in addition, through certain resonances, the top four most abundant elements are H, He, C, O, which gives us from stars and the periodic table to organic chemistry and water, with N close, which gets us to proteins, and O also forms semiconducting ceramics with various things, yielding the rocky basis for terrestrial planet crusts.] A "universal solvent" in which the chemistry of life can unfold. Since chemical reactions are too slow in the solid state, and complex life would not likely be sustained as a gas, there is a need for a liquid element or compound that readily dissolves both the reactants and the reaction products essential to living systems: namely, a liquid with the properties of water. [Added note: Water requires both hydrogen and oxygen.] A stable source of energy to sustain living systems in which there must be photons from the sun with sufficient energy to drive organic, chemical reactions, but not so energetic as to destroy organic molecules (as in the case of highly energetic ultraviolet radiation). A means of transporting the energy from the source (like our sun) to the place where chemical reactions occur in the solvent (like water on Earth) must be available. In the process, there must be minimal losses in transmission if the energy is to be utilized efficiently.
There can be the usual rhetorical dances, but the set-up of our cosmos is at a fine tuned local operating point that sets up requisites of C-Chemistry, cell based life. Leslie's fly on the wall swatted by a bullet metaphor is apt, in the context of OUR cosmos:
. . . the need for such explanations does not depend on any estimate of how many universes would be observer-permitting, out of the entire field of possible universes. Claiming that our universe is ‘fine tuned for observers’, we base our claim on how life’s evolution would apparently have been rendered utterly impossible by comparatively minor alterations in physical force strengths, elementary particle masses and so forth. There is no need for us to ask whether very great alterations in these affairs would have rendered it fully possible once more, let alone whether physical worlds conforming to very different laws could have been observer-permitting without being in any way fine tuned. Here it can be useful to think of a fly on a wall, surrounded by an empty region. A bullet hits the fly Two explanations suggest themselves. Perhaps many bullets are hitting the wall or perhaps a marksman fired the bullet. There is no need to ask whether distant areas of the wall, or other quite different walls, are covered with flies so that more or less any bullet striking there would have hit one. The important point is that the local area contains just the one fly.
Back in the days when I used to do resonance plotting exercises, we would scan the area looking for "knees" then come back and do points near suspects, to capture the peak as best as possible. Our life foundations peak is so hard to find -- so isolated -- that if we did not know where it was, we would be seriously challenged to find it. That is, AR was ducking the issue that LOCAL fine tuning is in the end just as wondrous as any global one would be. Coming back to Leslie, hitting that locally isolated fly requires a tack driver of a rifle -- itself seriously fine tuned -- and someone who knows what he is doing with it. Just ask any marksman. Or to change metaphor, to avoid burned hockey pucks and/or doughy half baked messes, you need to set up your cosmos bakery just right. Fine tuning, once it comes into the picture, is very hard to brush off. Hence the significance of Sir Fred Hoyle's observations on super-intellects monkeying with the physics of the cosmos. KFkairosfocus_{February 3, 2013
February
02
Feb
3
03
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

KN: It could just be an “eternal” quantum foam that produces infinitely many universes, one of which just happens to have the physical constants and laws that ours has. The question could arise, “but why is the multiverse the way it is?”, but I just shrug my shoulders at that one. Not everything has an explanation. There could be just be ‘brute facts’. Yea - "It could be bla bla bla + "There could be just be "brute facts" Many question could arise - I got one: How has this multiverse "thing" become a "brute fact" upon which you hang so much "could be" (i.e. HOPE) upon? I see so much bias from you I suppose you don't even have to put cloths on to go out in public :)alan_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

The multi-verse only pushes the question back - who created the multi-verses? and why?buffalo_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Hi Kantian Naturalist, Thank you for your comments. You ask why the multiverse couldn't be a brute fact. Good question. The best paper I know of which addresses this question is Professor Paul Herrick's ob Opening: Creator of the Universe—A Reply to Keith Parsons (2009). In particular, Herrick makes use of what he calls the Daring Inquiry Principle (DIP):
When confronted with the existence of some unexplained phenomenon X, it is reasonable to seek an explanation for X if we can coherently conceive of a state of affairs in which it would not be the case that X exists.
Using this principle, we can reasonably ask why the multiverse exists, because we can coherently conceive its absence. (The same trick doesn't work for God, because we can't conceive of Him at all. We can however ask what God would have to be like if his nonexistence were inconceivable. In that connection, this article by Dr. Craig makes a powerful case for a personal Creator, although Herrick makes a good case as well.) Regarding the multiverse (not just the universe) having had a beginning, you might like to have a look at this short post of mine: Vilenkin’s verdict: "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." . At the end of the post, I also have several links to articles I've written on the multiverse, explaining why fine-tuning is real (contrary to what Victor Stenger asserts), why a multiverse would still have to be fine-tuned to make baby universes, and what assumptions the fine-tuning argument makes about the Designer. I hope you find them useful.vjtorley_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

and that there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about choosing a life in which all the hope, love, and forgiveness that there is, is to be found in relationships with other people and with oneself.
Is there anything irrational or unreasonable about choosing a life in which hope, love and forgiveness are jokes, and you can do whatever you want so long as you avoid punishment? Is there anything irrational or unreasonable about feeding some very vicious and terrible desires? Under a materialist atheism, of course. I think the particular failure of atheism being cited here is only drawn out all the more when someone tries to suggest that 'atheism == "hope, love and forgiveness being found in relationships with each other and..."'. It's too Hallmark Card. Too obviously 'man, we better make this sound as nice as possible, all reality aside'. Which contrasts with the other common atheist stances where one of the points of pride of atheism is supposed to be the boldness of embracing a view that's so dismal, hope-lacking, where love and forgiveness are exposed as very petty, even meaningless things, etc. More than that, the 'brute fact' talk seems irrational itself. So we just decide that some facts have no explanation, no further inquiry required - the very things that theism is often falsely accused of advocating - but that's okay, because to assume otherwise would diminish atheism as a rational choice/conclusion? It's atheism's "God did it".nullasalus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply