Wiliam Lane Craig Infinite proof for god

Post Noob Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 52

I was listening to some of Craigs debates found at commonsenseatheism and found a flaw after listing to the second debate, mainly because the first I wasn't paying attention to too much.

Craig uses an argument for the existence of god by saying their is no infinity, its only a concept, and everything must have a beginning. Therefor this universe couldn't be infinite and always existed and had to be caused and the only thing that could have caused it would have to by a "timeless entity" therefor yahweh (via his argument for the bible being a good source of history) Craig gives four examples of why infinite cant exist, if I recall, without producing "absurdities."

So I find it odd no one I have listen to debate him has brought up the fact his "timeless entity," he calls god / yahweh, is the same as his concept of infinity making his argument self refuting. Is my logical thinking wrong here?

I also find Craig stating the "atheist must point to a (insert opposite condition of what he is trying to prove) to prove it doesn't exist. Is this the standard issue with trying to prove a negative? I dont understand why the people he debates (in the ones I have listened too so far) dont bring up the proof against his concept of god vs god in general.

Going to listen to more debates against Craig, if anyone has a good resource highlighting his arguments and why they are wrong it would be nice to see.

Newbie Joined: Dec 08, 2008 Posts: 23

I do agree with his points about infinity but here's the deal: time is a physical dimension. Time did not exist prior to our universe, so quite literally whatever caused our universe was timeless in that it existed before or outside of time. So, in a sense he's correct; however he's full of shit when he insists that this concept of timelessness can only apply to his god.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 1:05 am

zerilos wrote:

Time did not exist prior to our universe,

Really? I believe the hypothesis that "our universe" could be a localized event is growing in popularity among physicists. I will grant that IF our Hubble volume is the only matter in existence, then time MAY not have existed prior to it. The important word used in that last sentence is "may".

Here's an interesting article on the subject...
Did the universe have a beggining

It seems there's substantial data that even contradicts expansion theory, which of course has led to discussions such as this and gives people like Craig his fire.

Posted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 9:56 pm

MockingGods wrote:

Here's an interesting article on the subject...
Did the universe have a beggining .

Thanks M_G nice.
...no (meaningful) centre, no (actual) singularity, no 'explosion' (rather... expansion) [& not... into something] no (absolute) beginning...
expansion seems to mean that it's space itself that's being generated out of 'nothing' (ponder it, spatial dimension from... huh?) !!
...an entire universe load of stuff from a quantum fluctuation? >> err, err, brain overflow buffer... (therefore) ummm, God. Right! That was easy! OK now on with making the daily bread!

When we watch the Brian Cox vid of the cosmic story we see a well known graphic of a point expanding sideways out of which we get galaxies etc. YET it's a totally impossible view IMO !! (ow head hurts mommy)

Another interesting one (for the noobs) in sci-am from 08
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrow

[Heavily edited from here down;]
[edit; apologies, partial article, I'll try to find an alternate discussion for that one...]
[Update; a bit more here; http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2626
& someone who disagrees here; http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=689
and... yeah, I'm staying clear of the rabbithole for now!] SO; I guess, we shall see, huh?

Time works in reverse apparently Confused

TAKE THAT!! Multiverse denialists!! Smile

and, the reverse-history of the observable universe by Sean Carroll;
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/05/21/the-arrow-of-time-in-scientific-american/

It's getting very timey-wimey (where's my sonic screwdriver!)

AND - my search led me to this little gem (Nigeria?);
Starts off discussing a Christian apologetics book, ends with slapping the guy down & supporting scientific naturalism.
http://www.punchng.com/Articl.aspx?theartic=Art200903011162593

Finally, Sean Carrolls article, "Why (almost) All Cosmologists are Atheists"
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

>> another f-ing edit; Shocked

Just read his blog, I LIKE THIS GUY... in the first few postings, coffee, science and alchohol (all in moderation, of course Infidels)

Bye for now. iSayonara!

>>wait, more reading!! "Before the Big Bang"
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/feb/cover
(at least they give you the full article!! I mean, it's not like I don't actually buy these in paper at airports and train stations (no, I don't fire people for a living)

Bye... really... no really...

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 12:54 am

Good stuff IpondR... thanks:)

Quote:

expansion seems to mean that it's space itself that's being generated out of 'nothing' (ponder it, spatial dimension from... huh?) !!

If we think of space as simply the distance between objects, then IF there was a singularity, there may have been no space or time prior to it. However, if we think of our Hubble volume has being but a very small, perhaps infinitesimally small unit of all that exists, then space and time can exist independent of it, even if space and time may not have existed on a localized level. This is analogous of the black hole phenomenon. Space and time are compressed to near nothing at the core of such objects and yet continues normally beyond their event horizon.

I particularly like this paragraph from your last link (my bolding)...

Discover on, Before the Big Bang wrote:

Cosmologists Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok have a radical idea that could wipe away these mysteries. They theorize that the cosmos was never compacted into a single point and did not spring forth in a violent instant. Instead, the universe as we know it is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What we think of as the Big Bang, they contend, was the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours—right next to us, and yet displaced in a way that renders it invisible. Moreover, they say the Big Bang is just the latest in a cycle of cosmic collisions stretching infinitely into the past and into the future. Each collision creates the universe anew. The 13.7-billion-year history of our cosmos is just a moment in this endless expanse of time.

I personally like the bubble nucleation hypothesis (multi-verse) better, but this ekpyrotic hypothesis is also intriguing. It's important to note that neither hypothesis promotes the idea that time did not exist prior to our observable universe.

Post Noob Joined: Oct 04, 2005 Posts: 52

wow lots of information to read through, looks all very interesting.

However I am sure Craig would just consider these theories like he now accepts evolution. Meaning he would probably say "maybe god did it this way." What would be funnier, if the multiverse theories are accepted one day like evolution is, is the argument of "wasted space" as an indicator of "bad design" becomes universes bigger.

In the end I believe Craig would still want to use the age-old "but who created that" argument which we cant seem to use against him. As he ultimately wants to point to some entity who must have started everything "from nothing," a argument I dont believe can ever be proven.

Posted: Thu Jan 28, 2010 8:56 pm

Sure Dampire, welcome to the rabbithole Wink

M_G, a word about 'did the universe have a beginning?'
concerning sources... now I'm NOT saying this guy is a crank [he has physics and cosmology background] yet... he does skirt a bit on the wild side generally (meta research site mentions the 'face on mars' as artificial not natural or random (ie fractal)) - a quick glance at his wiki page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
gives an overview and comments on his level of acceptance within the wider sci community...

I gusess the danger is when a brilliant scientist strays beyond his area of speciality... and ends up supporting something they perhaps should have known better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars#.22Face_on_Mars.22_and_.22pyramids.22
because by association (or misappropriation by cranks...) they end up supporting the fringe;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Mars.2C_Face_on_Mars.2C_and_Cydonia

So, while these ideas (ie time, space and everything) are areas of legit. speculation, there's a wide spectrum of belief structures pushing their POV's... so we should all @ least bear that in mind. The difference beng (IMO) that between ideas that are on the cutting edge (outliers) v's ideas on the wild fringe... (borderline pseudoscience) - and I'd say that is part of the fun.

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:08 am

iPondR wrote:

Sure Dampire, welcome to the rabbithole Wink

M_G, a word about 'did the universe have a beginning?'
concerning sources... now I'm NOT saying this guy is a crank [he has physics and cosmology background] yet... he does skirt a bit on the wild side generally (meta research site mentions the 'face on mars' as artificial not natural or random (ie fractal)) - a quick glance at his wiki page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
gives an overview and comments on his level of acceptance within the wider sci community...

I gusess the danger is when a brilliant scientist strays beyond his area of speciality... and ends up supporting something they perhaps should have known better...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_on_Mars#.22Face_on_Mars.22_and_.22pyramids.22
because by association (or misappropriation by cranks...) they end up supporting the fringe;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Hoagland#Mars.2C_Face_on_Mars.2C_and_Cydonia

So, while these ideas (ie time, space and everything) are areas of legit. speculation, there's a wide spectrum of belief structures pushing their POV's... so we should all @ least bear that in mind. The difference beng (IMO) that between ideas that are on the cutting edge (outliers) v's ideas on the wild fringe... (borderline pseudoscience) - and I'd say that is part of the fun.

I agree sir and didn't do much background research on the author of that article. Just a quick googling brought it up. Still, I think it's important to realize that even our impressions of the red shift phenomenon could be wrong, and most notable cosmologists will acknowledge this. So making blanket statements such as, "time did not exist prior to the big bang", should never be viewed as absolutely accurate.. only possibly accurate. People like Craig use this inaccurate certainty to prop up their god claims, and should be rejected out-of-hand because of it.

Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2010 1:18 am

Dampire wrote:

However I am sure Craig would just consider these theories like he now accepts evolution. Meaning he would probably say "maybe god did it this way."

Of course, the religious will always attempt to insert god into nature; it's their job and they've been very successful promoting their meme with it. However, both evolutionary and multi-verse theories offer possible glimpses into a reality which is naturally self-contained. It's why many of the religious so strongly reject them even when theories like evolution are supported by large amounts of evidence. They need their ghost in the machine.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

Dampire wrote:

I was listening to some of Craigs debates found at commonsenseatheism and found a flaw after listing to the second debate, mainly because the first I wasn't paying attention to too much.

Craig uses an argument for the existence of god by saying their is no infinity, its only a concept, and everything must have a beginning. Therefor this universe couldn't be infinite and always existed and had to be caused and the only thing that could have caused it would have to by a "timeless entity" therefor yahweh (via his argument for the bible being a good source of history) Craig gives four examples of why infinite cant exist, if I recall, without producing "absurdities."

Actually the argument is that an actual infinite can not exist, i.e an actually infinite collection of things.. He agrees that symbolic infinities can exists such as exist in mathematics. He uses this as one of two approaches to establish the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument(see page 111 in book below).

The argument has good grounds in the writings of Hilbert, for example, i.e. Hilbert's Hotel.

You can see a very detailed description here , scroll down to page 116.

Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:24 pm

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Dampire wrote:

I was listening to some of Craigs debates found at commonsenseatheism and found a flaw after listing to the second debate, mainly because the first I wasn't paying attention to too much.

Craig uses an argument for the existence of god by saying their is no infinity, its only a concept, and everything must have a beginning. Therefor this universe couldn't be infinite and always existed and had to be caused and the only thing that could have caused it would have to by a "timeless entity" therefor yahweh (via his argument for the bible being a good source of history) Craig gives four examples of why infinite cant exist, if I recall, without producing "absurdities."

Actually the argument is that an actual infinite can not exist, i.e an actually infinite collection of things.. He agrees that symbolic infinities can exists such as exist in mathematics. He uses this as one of two approaches to establish the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument(see page 111 in book below).

The argument has good grounds in the writings of Hilbert, for example, i.e. Hilbert's Hotel.

You can see a very detailed description here , scroll down to page 116.

Hi OC!

Is there any crossover between Craig's position on actual (that is, physical) infinities and Georg Cantor's position re: types of infinity?

Briefly (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), didn't Cantor describe three types of infinity? Absolute (which is only found in God), mathematical (abstract concepts) and physical.
So, the Kalam is referring specifically to the non-existence of physical infinities, right? Hence the posited impossibility of infinite regression and therefore the requirement for a point of origin for all subsequent causes.
Mathematical and absolute (philosophical?) infinities are allowed because they have no concrete existence and are purely abstract concepts? That about right?

BAA.

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Dampire wrote:

I was listening to some of Craigs debates found at commonsenseatheism and found a flaw after listing to the second debate, mainly because the first I wasn't paying attention to too much.

Craig uses an argument for the existence of god by saying their is no infinity, its only a concept, and everything must have a beginning. Therefor this universe couldn't be infinite and always existed and had to be caused and the only thing that could have caused it would have to by a "timeless entity" therefor yahweh (via his argument for the bible being a good source of history) Craig gives four examples of why infinite cant exist, if I recall, without producing "absurdities."

Actually the argument is that an actual infinite can not exist, i.e an actually infinite collection of things.. He agrees that symbolic infinities can exists such as exist in mathematics. He uses this as one of two approaches to establish the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument(see page 111 in book below).

The argument has good grounds in the writings of Hilbert, for example, i.e. Hilbert's Hotel.

You can see a very detailed description here , scroll down to page 116.

Hi OC!

Is there any crossover between Craig's position on actual (that is, physical) infinities and Georg Cantor's position re: types of infinity?

Briefly (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), didn't Cantor describe three types of infinity? Absolute (which is only found in God), mathematical (abstract concepts) and physical.
So, the Kalam is referring specifically to the non-existence of physical infinities, right? Hence the posited impossibility of infinite regression and therefore the requirement for a point of origin for all subsequent causes.
Mathematical and absolute (philosophical?) infinities are allowed because they have no concrete existence and are purely abstract concepts? That about right?

Sounds right to me.

The key is to realize what the elements of the set in question are. Craig is talking about elements of things, not abstract objects. So the question of whether or not a set can be complete and infinite in the cantorian sense is irrelevant. Unless you beg the question and assume that mathematical entities are "real". See page 117 of the book I linked to. Remember the first premise of the KCA is dealing with the universe, i.e. the natural world.

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:19 am

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Dampire wrote:

I was listening to some of Craigs debates found at commonsenseatheism and found a flaw after listing to the second debate, mainly because the first I wasn't paying attention to too much.

Craig uses an argument for the existence of god by saying their is no infinity, its only a concept, and everything must have a beginning. Therefor this universe couldn't be infinite and always existed and had to be caused and the only thing that could have caused it would have to by a "timeless entity" therefor yahweh (via his argument for the bible being a good source of history) Craig gives four examples of why infinite cant exist, if I recall, without producing "absurdities."

Actually the argument is that an actual infinite can not exist, i.e an actually infinite collection of things.. He agrees that symbolic infinities can exists such as exist in mathematics. He uses this as one of two approaches to establish the first premise in the Kalam Cosmological Argument(see page 111 in book below).

The argument has good grounds in the writings of Hilbert, for example, i.e. Hilbert's Hotel.

You can see a very detailed description here , scroll down to page 116.

Hi OC!

Is there any crossover between Craig's position on actual (that is, physical) infinities and Georg Cantor's position re: types of infinity?

Briefly (and please correct me if I'm wrong here), didn't Cantor describe three types of infinity? Absolute (which is only found in God), mathematical (abstract concepts) and physical.
So, the Kalam is referring specifically to the non-existence of physical infinities, right? Hence the posited impossibility of infinite regression and therefore the requirement for a point of origin for all subsequent causes.
Mathematical and absolute (philosophical?) infinities are allowed because they have no concrete existence and are purely abstract concepts? That about right?

Sounds right to me.

The key is to realize what the elements of the set in question are. Craig is talking about elements of things, not abstract objects. So the question of whether or not a set can be complete and infinite in the cantorian sense is irrelevant. Unless you beg the question and assume that mathematical entities are "real". See page 117 of the book I linked to. Remember the first premise of the KCA is dealing with the universe, i.e. the natural world.

Ok then.
How about this, OC?
This is a purely speculative notion, but stick with me please and tell me what you think.

As far as we know, there are no proven physical infinities.

When it comes to the infinite divisibility of space, theorists talk about the 'Planck length' or about Virtual Particles, but these units are still infinitely larger than that which is infinitely small. Perhaps the only things in this universe that can be said to be infinitely small are the singularities of black holes, which are theorized to be of zero size. The singularity from which the universe is theorized to have sprung from (according to some cosmologists) would probably have been infinitely small (zero size) too. However, gleaning information about either of these types of singularity may well be impossible. I stand to be corrected here, of course. Future developments in theoretical physics and/or observational astronomy may force me to eat my words. So be it!

The universe itself may be of infinite size, but we will never get to see more than a tiny fraction of it due to the limitations impose by the speed of light and the expansion of the space-time continuum. As above, I may well be wrong here and strong lines of evidence may be found for the infinite extent of the universe. Time will tell.

Put simply, there might well be physical infinities lurking at either end of the spectrum of sizes. We seem to occupying the middle ground. Now OC, my question is this...
If evidence for either kind of physical infinity were to be found tomorrow, do you think this would this automatically invalidate the KCA, which deals with the natural, physical universe?

Thanks.

BAA.

p.s.
Umm... that link to Google Books seems to be just a page of reviews when I click on it. Am I missing something?

Confident Learner Joined: Feb 09, 2010 Posts: 92

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Ok then.
How about this, OC?
This is a purely speculative notion, but stick with me please and tell me what you think.

As far as we know, there are no proven physical infinities.

When it comes to the infinite divisibility of space, theorists talk about the 'Planck length' or about Virtual Particles, but these units are still infinitely larger than that which is infinitely small. Perhaps the only things in this universe that can be said to be infinitely small are the singularities of black holes, which are theorized to be of zero size. The singularity from which the universe is theorized to have sprung from (according to some cosmologists) would probably have been infinitely small (zero size) too. However, gleaning information about either of these types of singularity may well be impossible. I stand to be corrected here, of course. Future developments in theoretical physics and/or observational astronomy may force me to eat my words. So be it!

The universe itself may be of infinite size, but we will never get to see more than a tiny fraction of it due to the limitations impose by the speed of light and the expansion of the space-time continuum. As above, I may well be wrong here and strong lines of evidence may be found for the infinite extent of the universe. Time will tell.

Put simply, there might well be physical infinities lurking at either end of the spectrum of sizes. We seem to occupying the middle ground. Now OC, my question is this...
If evidence for either kind of physical infinity were to be found tomorrow, do you think this would this automatically invalidate the KCA, which deals with the natural, physical universe?

Thanks.

BAA.

p.s.
Umm... that link to Google Books seems to be just a page of reviews when I click on it. Am I missing something?

Both are speculations. I will grant that we can speculate that there may well be physical infinities and infinitesimals. There are no end to speculations from the scientific standpoint about the universe not having a beginning, for example. The point of the arguments [(1), [Page 116, (2), Page 120] is that such entities are not logically possible, and given no counter example can be materially demonstrated they still hold.

Furthermore, the second premise "The Universe Began to Exist" described on Page 116 is based on both philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning. In other words the premise can be established using multiple independent lines of reasoning. So even if the Philosophical establishment of the second premise were either definitively countered or was not convincing to some individual the premise is still substantiated via our current best science.

Look way over on the far right hand side and you will see a scroll bar. Scroll down through the book.

Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:50 am

The OC wrote:

Furthermore, the second premise "The Universe Began to Exist" described on Page 116 is based on both philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning.

Which should actually be written thusly, "The observable universe appears to have begun to exist". The second premise as written above is nothing but a bold, naked assertion. "The universe began to exist" wrongly has us assume that what we have observed is all that there is; and I don't believe that, from a naturalistic perspective, for a minute.


Login/Register New account	Home · FAQ · News · Shows · Videos · Forums · Arcade · Listen & Chat · Book Store · Contact Us · Go Mobile