tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post446650080348360576..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: My notes for the McGrath debateStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51690767262839406752011-04-19T09:36:25.197+00:002011-04-19T09:36:25.197+00:00We cannot say 'does the natural world points t...We cannot say 'does the natural world points to god". We should instead say "does the created world points to god". The answere is an absolute yes.solomonhttp://leemans@yescity.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-14662883185494141192010-01-30T21:38:42.590+00:002010-01-30T21:38:42.590+00:00this article has many holes. with regard to the qu...this article has many holes. with regard to the question of evil, it assumes that a Creator is responsible for the evil that exists in this world. Last time I checked, people are the ones doing bad things. We have been given a choice, and unfortunately some people have chosen to do evil. To blame that on God is a cop-out.robertslee01https://www.blogger.com/profile/10081889338753895966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52905953430857772902009-11-20T15:35:04.554+00:002009-11-20T15:35:04.554+00:00Does that mean you won ;-)Does that mean you won ;-)jbierlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07867835828231177757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58361022306294408472009-11-19T20:00:38.279+00:002009-11-19T20:00:38.279+00:00Unfortunately permission not forthcoming...Unfortunately permission not forthcoming...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27160780837204258302009-11-19T19:58:16.045+00:002009-11-19T19:58:16.045+00:00Is there somewhere online where we can view this d...Is there somewhere online where we can view this debate?jbierlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07867835828231177757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67784047050406282732009-11-18T09:34:29.377+00:002009-11-18T09:34:29.377+00:00Seems like a lot of words to tackle a delusion. Ar...Seems like a lot of words to tackle a delusion. Are you sure you are not feeding the delusion instead?<br /><br />By the way, I noticed your non-spatial chair has one leg shorter than the others. It gives it a wobble. I suggest you slide a theoretical book under there to give it some stability.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89500992523552013282009-11-16T16:46:59.967+00:002009-11-16T16:46:59.967+00:00And you got the God of Eth in there too. Nicely d...And you got the God of Eth in there too. Nicely done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-68196003818892297592009-11-16T16:28:21.037+00:002009-11-16T16:28:21.037+00:00One other point to add to the fine tuning argument...One other point to add to the fine tuning argument is that the science is far from definitive. Most physicists find the fine tuning objectionable and hope for a theory that eliminates the need. This is not to say that the universe is not fine tuned, but rather that just because our current model of the universe requires it to be does not make it so. Our current model could be (and most likely is) wrong.<br /><br />And I still don't find the "meaningless twaddle" argument at all convincing. A chair that exists outside of space and time makes sense if we assume that outside of our universe there exists a different UNIVERSE with its own SPACE and TIME. Just like our universe exists outside of the Asteroids video game universe and our space and time exist outside of Asteroids space and time. Real asteroids exist in our universe that transcend the space and time of the Asteroids universe. I see no problem with a chair that exists outside our universe that transcends our space and time.<br /><br />This of course runs into an infinite regress problem, but then all cosmologies seem to run into either an infinite regress or something unknowable. Occam's Razor stands us in good stead here.DSurbernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39009986523409930862009-11-16T16:16:51.450+00:002009-11-16T16:16:51.450+00:00There is also the biological objection against the...There is also the biological objection against the fine tuning argument. <br /><br />Life evolves based on the conditions present. The universe isn't fine-tuned for us, we are fine-tuned for the universe!<br /><br />Within reason, there are other conditions where other types of life may have evolved probably using different chemistry and radically different from us. <br /><br />We are the way we are because of our physical reality and evolutionary history, not because the entire universe was changed to suit these forms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-42480016294835539652009-11-16T09:41:03.748+00:002009-11-16T09:41:03.748+00:00"Occam's Razor dictates against complexit..."Occam's Razor dictates against complexity, not size, or a theory that said that the Universe was at least billions of light years across and contained 70 billion trillion stars would not be able to get off the ground."<br /><br />Increasing the number of entities postulated by a theory increases ontological complexity, as opposed to theoretical or syntactic complexity. Simplicity is not just one thing, and we ideally want to keep it down across the board. <br /><br />"Kosh3: No, what you're talking about is exactly the physical probability, or as I prefer to call it the "model probability" ie the probability your model would assign it."<br /><br />Even if you're correct, we can call it Juniberry probability for all that it matters: including the fact that life exists in the universe among our background information renders the probability estimation trivial. <br /><br />"And I can't find anything in what you say that gives me a legitimate way to assign a probability to physical law being the way it is."<br /><br /><i>Probably</i> (no pun intended) precisely because I didn't say a thing about ways to assign a probability to physical laws.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62479818906810729622009-11-16T09:02:50.097+00:002009-11-16T09:02:50.097+00:00Really excellent - the fine tuning argument is I t...Really excellent - the fine tuning argument is I think the hardest one to pick apart in debate, and this really does the job.<br /><br />In the same way that God gets the credit for the good things but not the blame for bad things, God is predictable when the predictions have already come to pass but unknowable when things go the other way. So the fact that the Universe can sustain life is evidence for Him because that's what we'd expect Him to do, but the fact that nearly all of the Universe is incredibly hostile to life is not a strike against him, because he's all unknowable and we can't hope to second-guess him in this way.<br /><br />The usual counter to your first objection is that multiverses violate Occam's Razor. Of course this is nonsense - Occam's Razor dictates against complexity, not size, or a theory that said that the Universe was at least billions of light years across and contained 70 billion trillion stars would not be able to get off the ground.<br /><br />Kosh3: No, what you're talking about is exactly the physical probability, or as I prefer to call it the "model probability" ie the probability your model would assign it. And I can't find anything in what you say that gives me a legitimate way to assign a probability to physical law being the way it is.Paul Crowleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07678457525255135699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21774225492323489042009-11-16T01:55:57.255+00:002009-11-16T01:55:57.255+00:00Oh they are the same person. I should have guessed...Oh they are the same person. I should have guessed the H stands for HughKosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80182212663950896272009-11-16T01:29:55.389+00:002009-11-16T01:29:55.389+00:00I think you mean D H Mellor? I think the point is ...I think you mean D H Mellor? I think the point is a bad one - if you include for epistemic probability among the background information considered by the subject the fact that life exists, then it becomes trivial that the epistemic probability of the universe supporting life is very high - but this is simply the so-called 'problem of old evidence'. You can have epistemic probability that does not include amongst background information the fact that life does already exist in our universe, and that should be how we properly treat it.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.com