tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5739450301215896837..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Maudlin on the philosophy of cosmologyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71036651262562489902012-08-08T13:32:22.762-07:002012-08-08T13:32:22.762-07:00“An individual respective very location is the pre...“An individual respective very location is the present and the rest all the locations are of the deep of the past” In this way; Ultimate reality of Philosophy is: see at http://shahidurrahmansikder.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34599790295443391032012-02-03T19:55:46.294-08:002012-02-03T19:55:46.294-08:00Gio,
I think others will chime in more thoroughly...Gio,<br /><br />I think others will chime in more thoroughly, but I'll start out with a couple observations. The poster has been badly deceived if he thinks we "routinely observe" anything popping into existence from nothingness without cause, ever. All that we observe, and can observe, is that whose cause, if any, we are unaware of. Likewise, his claim that for all we know these things pop into existence from nothingness without cause is an appeal to sheer philosophical possibiliy. Last Thursdayism is also sheer philosophical possibility, and it too is counterintuitive.<br /><br />He's operating with a very poor understanding of science and philosophy both. He also seems to imply that some things pop into existence without cause and from nothingness because it's their nature to do so. Assuming that suggestion: but if they did not exist at one point, how could their nature accomplish anything? And if it's not their nature, and it's not a law, and there was neither cause nor source, then what he's appealing to would be more accurately called magic, or irrationality.FGLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17430371236586833402012-02-03T17:38:47.406-08:002012-02-03T17:38:47.406-08:00What do you all think of the arguments against Dr....What do you all think of the arguments against Dr. Feser in this blog post here: http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/what-are-laws-of-physics/<br /><br />"Specifically the following: I would interpret Siegel’s remark as meaning: “Because of the nature and behaviour of particles, they don’t need to come from any pre-existing cause, they can come into existence, uncaused, from nothing”. Regardless of whether that claim is true (and we don’t fully know yet), Siegel’s remark is not pointing to some pre-existing “laws” as an entity that creates the matter. That would be to misunderstand what physical laws are. Yet Feser does just that"<br /><br />I'm not convinced by them but I don't have a good response. Does any commentator here have one?Giohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14538159578771079797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43360065426116509102012-02-02T20:10:55.262-08:002012-02-02T20:10:55.262-08:00dguller, thanks for the summary.
How is this p...dguller, thanks for the summary. <br /><br /><i> How is this possible? Because of the multiverse (p. 176). The idea is that if any universe is possible, including universes with different physical laws from our own, then physical laws do not necessarily cause the creation of a universe out of nothing. </i> <br /><br />I love it. You can "explain" the universe by hypothesizing a multiverse and then hypothesizing principles about it that limit what goes on, and then call one universe "coming from nothing."Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31115713574492828432012-02-02T04:09:15.155-08:002012-02-02T04:09:15.155-08:00And just to add to what I wrote, Krauss implies th...And just to add to what I wrote, Krauss implies that "nothing" has properties that determine what can come out of it, i.e. "something". However, the traditional understanding of "nothing" is such that it has no properties, and thus if Krauss' "nothing" has properties, then it is not the traditional understanding of "nothing", and which means that he has ducked the challenge by simply redefining "nothing" in such a way that it is amenable to scientific inquiry.<br /><br />Krauss' "nothing" is more akin to an immaterial substance (i.e. it is outside of space-time) that has always existed, because the laws of physics that delimit its possible outcomes are eternal, and that has a variety of potential outcomes -- such as the development of space, and then material entities within space -- that are actualized by itself by virtue of operating according to the natural laws that define its essence. <br /><br />At least, that's how I make sense of it. Regardless, an immaterial substance is not "nothing".dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72173669638312017232012-02-01T15:34:14.058-08:002012-02-01T15:34:14.058-08:00Just finished reading Krauss’s book, A Universe Fr...Just finished reading Krauss’s book, <i>A Universe From Nothing</i>, and it is just what you would expect from a physicist talking about something coming out of nothing. <br /><br />He actually starts the book by acknowledging that he has been confronted about his definition of “nothing”. He is told that “nothing” is “nonbeing”, and that “some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe”, which is that “‘nothing’ is every bit as physical as ‘something’, especially if it is to be defined as the ‘absence of something’.” (p. xiv). So, right away there is lots of confusion, because he says that it is “some philosophers and most theologians” who have redefined “nothing” in the face of science, which is patently untrue, especially since theologians have held the same definition of “nothing” for millennia. In fact, Krauss himself redefines “nothing” over the course of his own book.<br /><br />His first definition of “nothing” is “empty space” without “dust, gas people, and even the radiation passing through” (p. 58). He says that “something” can spontaneously come from the operation of the laws of physics upon empty space, such as the creation of electron-positron pairs (p. 149), because empty space “is a boiling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time so short we cannot see them directly” (p. 153). And even funnier, he writes that when Aquinas was talking about “nothing”, “empty space with nothing in it was probably a good approximation of what they were thinking about” (p. 149), which is highly unlikely. Anyway, even Krauss recognizes that this definition of “nothing” is “disingenuous” (p. 152), which leads to his next definition of “nothing”.<br /><br />His next definition of “nothing” is similar to the first one, but involves the absence of even space itself, but still requires the laws of physics (p. 161). He argues that space itself can come from “nothing” by virtue of the operations of a quantum theory of gravity in which “small, possibly compact spaces that themselves pop in and out of the existence” (p. 163). In that way, “quantum gravity indeed might create an inflating universe directly from nothing”. Again, this definition if unsatisfactory, because surely “quantum gravity” is still <i>something</i>, which he recognizes, and which leads to his final definition of “nothing”.<br /><br />This definition is similar to the second one, but involves the absence of the laws of physics themselves: “even the laws of physics may not be necessary of required” to cause our universe to arise from nothing (p. 170). How is this possible? Because of the multiverse (p. 176). The idea is that if any universe is possible, including universes with different physical laws from our own, then physical laws do not necessarily cause the creation of a universe out of nothing. <br /><br />However, he <i>immediately</i> takes this away by requiring certain underlying principles that guide the process of the creation of universes from nothing. One is “the general principle that anything that is not forbidden is allowed” (p. 176), and the other is that “to be fair, to make any scientific progress in calculating possibilities, we generally assume that certain properties, like quantum mechanics, permeate all possibilities” (p. 166-7). In other words, there must be “certain properties” present in every possible universe that delimit what is possible, and which thus affect their actualization. And certainly, these “properties” are not “nothing”.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47874050155937346722012-01-29T11:48:28.183-08:002012-01-29T11:48:28.183-08:00Despite what Prof. Maudlin says about physicists, ...<i>Despite what Prof. Maudlin says about physicists, he himself is not a theist.</i><br /><br />I never said he was. Not sure why it's relevant, though.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54471316192242981032012-01-29T11:15:08.534-08:002012-01-29T11:15:08.534-08:00Despite what Prof. Maudlin says about physicists, ...Despite what Prof. Maudlin says about physicists, he himself is not a theist. <br /><br />In accounting for what caused the "big bang state," he notes there are several different lines of thought. "One that's becoming more prevalent in the physics community is the idea that the big bang state itself arose out of some previous condition, and that therefore there might be an explanation of it in terms of the previously existing dynamics by which it came about."<br /><br />There is no mention of God or of a transcedent First Cause whatsoever.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44489454546845798432012-01-28T16:49:38.596-08:002012-01-28T16:49:38.596-08:00I know it must be very frustrating to have to slog...I know it must be very frustrating to have to slog through the sophistries of the atheists--it's a tough job, but someone has to do it! This reader is grateful for your insightful summaries providing a "Cliff's Notes" approach to the task so I don't have to do it!Either Orhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11076585209692578350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74618013478587839202012-01-27T22:08:23.819-08:002012-01-27T22:08:23.819-08:00Well can't really claim to be an expert in Eng...Well can't really claim to be an expert in English. I suppose God will forgive me for making a mistake while writing in a foreign language.Edward (not Feser)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13485257734594176772012-01-27T20:57:57.031-08:002012-01-27T20:57:57.031-08:00When did "argument" become a transitive ...When did "argument" become a transitive verb? If there is a God, he can't be pleased by this development.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30623396114616887282012-01-27T17:28:25.349-08:002012-01-27T17:28:25.349-08:00The Ontological Argument worries with proving that...The Ontological Argument worries with proving that the Greatest conceivable entity or being exists, simply through modal logic, So I suppose the morals/behavior of such being do not hurt the argument.<br /><br />Now even IF the argument does not argue for the behavior and personality of the Greatest conceivable being that means nothing after all you can infer more characteristics through different types of arguments, just like we can know the height of the shooter without knowing if the shooter behave in one way "A" or another way "B". You can explore entities part by part.<br /><br />What I suppose you are argumenting is that these kind of arguments don't prove the God of the Bible with all the chracteristics/behaviors spoken in the Bible. Of course now you will go down the Hermeneutics alley and will have to argument there.Edward (not Feser)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80889562361077185442012-01-27T13:55:32.150-08:002012-01-27T13:55:32.150-08:00What I meant by "big deal" is that it is...What I meant by "big deal" is that it is very clear what Coyne is about and thus it's not very interesting for you to argue with him.<br /><br />Lets hypothetically grant that you've demonstrated that there is some "necessary being", whether you call it the Absolute or existence itself or god.<br /><br />That by itself is unexceptionable. Maybe even Jerry Coyne would agree. The problem is that when you employ the term "god" you bring forth all the associations from the less-sophisticated meanings, such as getting angry, having a great deal of concern with the details of human sexuality or whether we are allowed to eat shellfish.<br /><br />You can see the problem. Does "existence itself" object to homosexuality or eating shrimp or working on Sunday? That sounds absurd.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12571208666315385582012-01-27T13:09:28.475-08:002012-01-27T13:09:28.475-08:00if you define God in such a way that he exits in a...<i>if you define God in such a way that he exits in all possible worlds, then he exists!</i><br /><br />Well, no. You don't "define" God in such a way. <br /><br />The argument runs that for such and such reasons, something must exist necessarily rather than contingently. That is, it cannot be "turtles all the way down." <br /><br />Given this necessary being (which we might call "Existence Itself," since its essence just is to exist), we can deduce certain attributes or powers it must possess. The summation of these attributes or powers add up to the God of traditional theism. <br /><br />Hope this helps.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14536346252053135982012-01-27T13:05:36.852-08:002012-01-27T13:05:36.852-08:00I'm afraid it did not occur to me at the time ...<i>I'm afraid it did not occur to me at the time I asked, exactly who Atkins was. If I'd remembered, I would not have bothered to ask, since I had seen a portion of one of his performances on YouTube prior. ...<br /><br />Well, unrepresentative as the clip may have been of the general tenor of the exchange, I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. I hadn't seen a thumping take-down of an incompetent opponent as spectacular as that, since wrestling in High School.</i><br /><br />Dear god, Atkins played Henry Pulleine to Craig's Cetshwayo. No wonder real atheists cringe when their lesser brethren take to the stage.E.H. Munrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09038816873823422488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26209600999686169592012-01-27T09:57:31.094-08:002012-01-27T09:57:31.094-08:00Agreed. Spinoza's God exists.Agreed. Spinoza's God exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70168511557703773482012-01-27T09:50:11.709-08:002012-01-27T09:50:11.709-08:00"Yes, if you define God in such a way that he..."Yes, if you define God in such a way that he exits in all possible worlds, then he exists! That was easy, we can all go home now."<br /><br />It's the other way around you disingenuous nerdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26412666949233257892012-01-27T09:32:55.275-08:002012-01-27T09:32:55.275-08:00"Put that in your pipe and smoke it.""Put that in your pipe and smoke it."Edward (not Feser)noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-49189268893241112532012-01-27T08:29:39.993-08:002012-01-27T08:29:39.993-08:00Inky said...
... As for Atkins, after extensi...Inky said...<br /><br /><br />... As for Atkins, after extensive searching I've failed to find this debate with Craig in which Atkins declared that nothing exists. ...<br /><br /> January 26, 2012 4:26 PM<br /><br />Although I was only one of several who expressed interest, I appreciate your looking.<br /><br />I'm afraid it did not occur to me at the time I asked, exactly who Atkins was. If I'd remembered, I would not have bothered to ask, since I had seen a portion of one of his performances on YouTube prior. <br /><br />Apparently Wm. Buckley had been moderating a debate and ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_detailpage ...<br /><br />Well, unrepresentative as the clip may have been of the general tenor of the exchange, I couldn't believe what I was witnessing. I hadn't seen a thumping take-down of an incompetent opponent as spectacular as that, since wrestling in High School.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35348035769433313192012-01-27T08:10:16.947-08:002012-01-27T08:10:16.947-08:00Anonymous said...
"Enjoy (if inane blath...Anonymous said...<br /><br /> "Enjoy (if inane blather is the sort of thing you like)"<br /><br /> Yes. The Liar for Jesus ™ does blather on with tautology and pseudo-scientific word salad doesn't he.<br /><br /> Slow it down, or better yet, transcribe it to see the nonsense that spews forth from the little charlatan.<br /><br /> Serious question to the faithful. What evidence would make you reconsider your worldview? Any?<br /><br /> January 27, 2012 12:22 AM<br /><br /><br />I can't claim to be one of the faithful, but, since it's implicitly a big "worldview" question, one might rhetorically ask what parts of the worldview you had in mind.<br /><br />For example did you mean to include within (or skirt) the composite views on: the adequacy of the "scientific method" as the sole explanatory framework for questions of human existence and value; or, opinions regarding the significance, if any, of organic personality or mental disorders on the adequacy of arguments made by ardent atheists if taken a class of persons often exhibiting signs of say, autism or borderline personality disorder; or, implying a change of position regarding the logical (or even moral)legitimacy of simply entertaining questions about the concepts of being and non-being and cause?<br /><br />But like I said those were rhetorical questions.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13475704234041602742012-01-27T00:37:41.155-08:002012-01-27T00:37:41.155-08:00Still further, according to classical theism, God ...<i>Still further, according to classical theism, God is a necessary being; he exists in all possible worlds; it’s not even possible that he should fail to exist</i><br /><br />Yes, genius, that's the case according to classical theism. However, no classical theist, including Plantinga, is making the argument "God exists necessarily, therefore He exists". The closest to this sort of argument would be an ontological argument like Anselm's, which Plantinga doesn't make. God's existence, and the necessary nature of it, are argued for on other grounds.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44796167761968709952012-01-27T00:29:20.175-08:002012-01-27T00:29:20.175-08:00OK, so Coyne either doesn't understand what Pl...<i>OK, so Coyne either doesn't understand what Plantinga means by necessary, or he's pretending not to in order to score points. Big deal.</i><br /><br />So, he's either an ignoramus who doesn't understand the arguments he tries to speak on (just as we've said), or a liar who knows his readers are too ignorant to realize he's lying. Big deal!<br /><br /><br /><i>Yes, if you define God in such a way that he exits in all possible worlds, then he exists!</i><br /><br />You, on the other hand, are unequivocally in the "ignoramus who doesn't understand the arguments he tries to speak on" category on this particular issue.The Deucehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09664665914768916965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51266155869650086152012-01-27T00:22:17.816-08:002012-01-27T00:22:17.816-08:00"Enjoy (if inane blather is the sort of thing..."Enjoy (if inane blather is the sort of thing you like)"<br /><br />Yes. The Liar for Jesus ™ does blather on with tautology and pseudo-scientific word salad doesn't he. <br /><br />Slow it down, or better yet, transcribe it to see the nonsense that spews forth from the little charlatan.<br /><br />Serious question to the faithful. What evidence would make you reconsider your worldview? Any?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32072047176945716902012-01-26T23:50:46.438-08:002012-01-26T23:50:46.438-08:00Whoops, quote got left out:
Still further, accordi...Whoops, quote got left out:<br /><i>Still further, according to classical theism, God is a necessary being; he exists in all possible worlds; it’s not even possible that he should fail to exist</i>goddinpottynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74230219539914959052012-01-26T23:48:48.009-08:002012-01-26T23:48:48.009-08:00OK, so Coyne either doesn't understand what Pl...OK, so Coyne either doesn't understand what Plantinga means by necessary, or he's pretending not to in order to score points. Big deal.<br /><br />What I want to know, why isn't this sentence of Plantinga's a laughable tautology?<br /><br /><br /><br />Yes, if you define God in such a way that he exits in all possible worlds, then he exists! That was easy, we can all go home now.goddinpottynoreply@blogger.com