Saturday, July 22, 2017

Hinman on Carroll on atheist cosmologists

Here. 

But see also Donald Page's guest post on Carroll's blog.

21 comments:

Stardusty Psyche said...

(from the closing of the Donal Page link)
"Nevertheless, in view of all the evidence, including both the elegance of the laws of physics, the existence of orderly sentient experiences, and the historical evidence, I do believe that God exists and think the world is actually simpler if it contains God than it would have been without God. So I do not agree with you, Sean, that naturalism is simpler than theism, though I can appreciate how you might view it that way."
--I noticed that Page did not mention any Thomistic language or arguments at all, probably because they are so archaic and badly formed that they do not warrant even a mention.

Page also discounts philosophical arguments for god in general, and the Kalam argument in particular.

In the end Page's belief seems to come down to just his personal feelings. So fine, he is free to feel a sort of argument from beauty in what he considers to be elegant, as well as the orderliness of thought. He also seems to think there is some sort of historical evidence for god being god, as opposed to just exaggerated or fictional ancient stories.

Not many people with the intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist are going to be convinced by such vague emotions and a few old scrolls found in jars in the desert. But at least Page was critical of Krauss, so that's a plus.

Mortal said...

It might be more revealing to count "significant" cosmologists, rather than the great mass of anyone who took cosmology at university and labels himself a cosmologist.

Just take a look at the list here to see how false the notion of most cosmologists being atheists is.

Legion of Logic said...

The intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist is no better than any other scientist, half of whom are not atheists. Nor is the intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist any better than other professions of similar education level. Nothing special about cosmologists, at all.

grodrigues said...

@Legion of Logic:

"The intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist is no better than any other scientist, half of whom are not atheists. Nor is the intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist any better than other professions of similar education level. Nothing special about cosmologists, at all."

Exactly. It is a most bizarre phenomena, and a sure sign of the extreme poverty of the intellectual debate, the prevailing idea that cosmologists qua cosmologists (or more generally, scientists qua scientists) have anything of special relevance to say, or any special authority, on the question of the existence or non-existence of God.

Joe Hinman said...

Metacrock's blog today

Dath to Euthyphro!

Joe Hinman said...

that should say"Death" not DAth

Joe Hinman said...

-I noticed that Page did not mention any Thomistic language or arguments at all, probably because they are so archaic and badly formed that they do not warrant even a mention.

yea and you know so much about Thomism such a noted authority.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...
" yea and you know so much about Thomism such a noted authority."
July 24, 2017 6:36 AM

You have no capacity to address my arguments here:

https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM


Stardusty Psyche said...

grodrigues said...

" on the question of the existence or non-existence of God."
July 24, 2017 5:51 AM

--You wouldn't know an argument for the existence or non-existence of god if it bit you on the ass.

Joe Hinman said...


here

Joe Hinman said...

you link doesn't works Dusty

Stardusty Psyche said...


Joe Hinman said...
you link doesn't works Dusty
July 28, 2017 3:40 AM
Yes it does
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12

then go to
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said...
" yea and you know so much about Thomism
such a noted authority."
July 24, 2017 6:36 AM

Well, by all means, please do point out my errors of fact and argument in a post here
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12

Tagged
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM

In it I thoroughly negate the very core of the First Way, rendering it irreparable.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said...

" The intellectual gravitas of a cosmologist is no better than any other scientist,"
--Are all scientists the same? Does every field of science tend to attract the same sorts of people? Are all fields equally difficult? Do all fields equally probe matters most germane to our origins and explanations for existence as we observe it?

I don't think so, and those differences account for the fact that nearly all cosmologists are atheists. Yes, there is something special about cosmologists.


July 23, 2017 8:41 AM

Mortal said...

Hey, Stardusty, there are 2,297 comments over at your link. How about copy/pasting your argument over to here, so we don't have to search through that pile?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mortal said...
Hey, Stardusty, there are 2,297 comments over at your link. How about copy/pasting your argument over to here, so we don't have to search through that pile?
July 29, 2017 10:55 AM

That's why I provided the tag
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM

Just hit CtrlF or other means to activate a find in your browser, copy and paste that tag into the search box, and you should be able to jump directly to that post.

I have not been able to get the comment permalink to work reliably so I have not used those links.

I'm not sure it's good netiquette to copy material from a different thread to this thread.

Mortal said...

I'm not sure it's good netiquette to copy material from a different thread to this thread.

It's perfectly OK if you tell people that's what you're doing.

I use a Google Chrome Book, so my keyboard does not have the function keys you mention.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mortal said...

" It's perfectly OK if you tell people that's what you're doing."
--Ok, I will copy the summary post below. The listed tags are at the above link.

" I use a Google Chrome Book, so my keyboard does not have the function keys you mention."
--I'm pretty sure your Chrome Book has a control key, abbreviated Ctrl.
Press it and also press the letter F. That should activate find.

Your browser is probably Chrome. It also has a find function. Click on the 3 vertical dots to get the pop up menu, then select Find, where they give you the shortcut Ctrl-F as I have described.

*********

Some Key Concepts
1.The notion of an “essential” series is illusory.
2.Simultineity of cause and effect does not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero (the infinitesimal).
3.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of matter/energy on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy.
4.No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of conservation of matter/energy.
5. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for persistence of motion on the modern science of inertia.
6.All forms of change require so called “local motion”.
7.Every causal series is a temporal series.
8. No ontological first mover (sustaining cause) is necessary for change on the modern science of motion.
9.No temporal first mover is called for on the assertion of an eternal universe with eternal motion.
10.The assertion in the First Way of “But this cannot go on to infinity” versus “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover” is a false dichotomy because there simply is no “this” or “it” (ontological series or sustating cause) necessary.
11.The plain text reading of the series “If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again” with respect to “It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion” is a temporal regress.
12.The assertion “But this cannot go on to infinity” is false on the plain text temporal reading and an eternal universe with eternal motion.
(to find the reasons for 1 through 12 above see the following)
July 26, 2017 11:32 PM
July 26, 2017 11:33 PM
July 26, 2017 11:34 PM
July 26, 2017 11:38 PM
July 26, 2017 11:39 PM


(from)
July 28, 2017 5:12 PM
https://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2017/01/david-haines-defense-of-aquinas-first.html?commentPage=12

kongponleu88 said...


Great content indeed.
Very Useful post.
Thanks for providing it
โกเด้นสล็อต

Mortal said...

Stardusty,

Eh. Sorry, but I much prefer Thomas's line of reasoning to yours. Much more convincing.

Nice try, though - but no cigar.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Mortal said...

" Eh. Sorry, but I much prefer Thomas's line of reasoning to yours. Much more convincing."
--Preference is irrelevant to reasoning, except a preference for reasoning itself, as opposed to a preference for irrationality. Which do you prefer?

" Nice try, though - but no cigar."
--So, you have no specific counter arguments, only a vague "nice try".

I doubt very much you could even follow the arguments, much less form sound counter arguments. But if you need anything clarified just let me know.