Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Wm Lane Craig: New Discovery Proves Bible


ficino

Recommended Posts

I KNEWWW it!!   William Lane Craig is claiming victory.  On Fox Five.  As a commentator on science.

 

Holy fuck.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3372449786001/do-new-big-bang-findings-support-the-bible--/#sp=show-clips

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theists like Craig pilfer science when they think it suits their religious agenda/dogma and reject it when they think it contradicts their agenda/dogma.  Craig lies when he deems it necessary.  In short, he is intellectually and morally bankrupt.   I'm not surprised at all.  This is common behavior for most religious sociopaths.  On top of that, Craig is paid money to peddle his theistic candy.  Craig is a religious whore.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want a comparative message in popular terms by a more dependable source than Wm. Lane Craig, I recommend 

Stephen Colbert Interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy - 2010-Jan-29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg It's about an hour and a half long but it's funny PLUS educational. 
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good thing that can come out of this is the hope that some christians would compare OEC Craig to YEC Ham.  Both claim the bible as their authority, and both hold opposite viewpoints about genesis.  I hope this gets more Americans thinking about how a loving god would allow two of his prominent spokesmen to have polarising views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and Tyson makes no pretense at proving the Bible. What I meant about the message being the same was the scientific end of things. Tyson is an astro-physicist and (I think) atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you want a comparative message in popular terms by a more dependable source than Wm. Lane Craig, I recommend 

Stephen Colbert Interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson at Montclair Kimberley Academy - 2010-Jan-29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg It's about an hour and a half long but it's funny PLUS educational. 

 

Cool!  One of my former students teaches there now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, didn't you guys get the memo that Kalam has been proven? WLC is quickly becoming my least favorite public figures. Until recently, I didn't realize anyone took his bullshit seriously. What scares me is the possibility that I'm going to find out people take sye ten bruggencate seriously too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the BICEP2 results hold up, then WLC can kiss goodbye to his beloved singularity.

 

http://profmattstrassler.com/2014/03/18/if-its-holds-up-what-might-bicep2s-discovery-mean/

 

"If there were any doubt that gravity is controlled, just like everything else, by quantum physics, it... [the doubt] ...would be erased; BICEP2's observation would imply that just like other fields, which are subject to quantum jitter ((i.e., random "fluctuations"), space and time (somewhat more precisely, the metric that determines distances) undergoes the same kind of quantum fluctuations as other fields, fluctuations that any quantum version of Einstein's theory of gravity would predict.  No details about quantum gravity are needed for this conclusion."

.

.

.

So what's that in plain(er) English?

 

WLC uses Einstein's theories to give him an infinitely small, infinitely dense singularity, which he claims caused the Big Bang.  This singularity is the beginning of space and time - the space-time continuum.  Craig then inserts his god into the picture, claiming that God (who's outside of space and time) used the singularity to cause the Big Bang. 

 

But... to get his singularity, space-time must be able to be infinitely compressed.

However, in any version of Quantum Gravity, space-time cannot be infinitely compressed.   Space-time cannot be an infinitely-compressible... c-o-n-t-i-n-u-u-m ...if it exists as separate units (quanta).   Anything that's continuous cannot be broken down into separate units.  These two conditions (continuance and separation) are mutually-exclusive.  They are oil and water.  They do not and cannot mix.  Quantized space-time cannot form a singularity. 

.

.

.

 

Sorry Bill! 

BICEP's results = Quantum Gravity = No Singularity = No Kalam

 

Game over.

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. "Talbot School of Philosophy"? And can you be a professor of philosophy from only an funda-gelical perspective? Weird. I gave up shortly after that. I'm tired of pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as scientists. 

 

Ugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

That was extremely intellectually dishonest. But at the same time this guy's hilarious.

 

He holds up one of his biggest failures as if it's one of his greatest achievements.

 

Apologetic's at it's finest.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joshpantera wrote...

 

"That was extremely intellectually dishonest.  But at the same time this guy's hilarious.

 

He holds up one of his biggest failures as if it's one of his greatest achievements.

 

Apologetics at it's finest..."

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Agree Josh.

 

Yesterday, in response to that vid, I didn't make any comment on WLC's integrity (or lack thereof), but confined myself strictly to the science.  However,  seeing as you've raised the issue, Craig surely knows the following.

 

1.

That his argument requires the acceptance of a number highly technical and debatable points relating to how Inflationary physics relates to the Friedmann models of a spatially 'flat' universe.  When interviewed, Craig should qualify his argument in this way, but he doesn't.

 

2.

That he relies on a pre-Inflation, 'traditional' Big Bang cosmological model in his argument. 

With the recent (but yet to be verified) discovery of the gravitational wave polarization of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, such a traditional model will be ruled out in favour of an Inflationary one.  When interviewed, Craig should make it clear from the outset that his model will be ruled out if this verification happens.  But he doesn't.

 

3.

That if the CMB discovery is verified, Quantum Gravity will be the favoured paradigm, replacing Einsteinian Gravitational theory on quantum scales.  Please note that Einsteinian gravity breaks down at the quantum scale anyway.  This has been known for decades, but Craig simply ignores this problem.  He shouldn't.....!  Assuming QG is viable, he'll have no grounds for continuing to ignore this problem.   

 

4.

That his gravitational singularity isn't a standard black hole (which only swallows matter and energy) but is a version of Stephen Hawking's model of a time-reversed black hole, more popularly known as a white hole.  Such a singularity cannot swallow matter and energy, but can only emit it.  Alan Guth is on record as saying that such a white hole cannot be made to work with Inflationary physics.  His words... "it's impossible, even in principle"  When interviewed, Craig should make Guth's objection known, because he relies on Guth's work (see below) to give him the beginning he needs to make his argument 'work'.  But he didn't and doesn't do that.

 

5.

That Borde, Guth and Vilenkin's paper, which he claims proves there must have been a beginning, isn't so clear cut when looked at more closely.  http://debunkingwlc.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/borde-guth-vilenkin/  Craig should be transparent about this, but when interviewed or even when debating the theorist Sean Carroll, he isn't.  If the interviewer isn't smart enough to raise the point, he lets it lie.  Or, if the point is raised, he simply ignores it and repeats the mantra that a beginning is proven.  In both cases Craig shouldn't do either!

 

6.

Since he concedes that God can create any number of universes, his very next sentence should be to correctly apply the Copernican principle to that statement and qualify it properly.  But he never mentions that principle.  If he did, it'd oblige him to treat this universe as just one of many.  Then he'd have no grounds for claiming that our universe was the first to exist and is the very reason for all the others to exist.  The Copernican principle prevents him from making the claim that we're special - so Craig never mentions it.  But he should do that.

 

7.

Since he concedes that God can create any number of universes, after correctly applying the Copernican principle, his very next sentence should be to outline the issue of the Finite Replication paradox.  (Not the Infinite, but the Finite version of this paradox)  Even if there aren't an infinite quantity of other universes, a sufficiently large, finite number of them still leads to the exact replication of you, me, everyone else and even identical duplicates of the planet Earth.   Since Craig can't deny that inflation has been going on for at least 13.82 billion years, creating universes at an exponentially-increasing rate for that duration, the math is against him... so he never mentions the finite, but increasing number of our duplicates.  But he should do so, because the Copernican principle demands it.

 

Here's a brief description of the Infinite Replication Paradox.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philosophy/afterlife-under-physicalism-t21843.html

Please look at post #2, by Teuton. 

.

.

.

That's quite a lot of 'should's' and 'shouldn't's' eh, Josh?

Now call me old-fashioned, but I thought the scriptural onus was on the Christians to be honest and transparent.  Yes?  

I thought that at all times they were supposed to be lovers of the truth.   Right?

 

So why is it in Craig's apologetics, it's up to the interviewer or debating opponent to catch him out when he isn't being honest, transparent and a lover of the truth?

 

Maybe he's adopted a new model of Christian apologetic ministry?

One that follows this principle?

.

.

.

"WHATEVER   YOU   DO,   DON'T   GET   CAUGHT   OUT!"

.

.

.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Thanks for cataloging the intellectual dishonesty, BAA.

 

We may also add to the list his claim that Genesis is different from the pagan mythologies which is complete rubbish because it was developed based on knowledge of near eastern creation myths. It states that in the beginning God created a multi-layered universe with multiple "heavens" as in the near eastern cosmology surrounding a flat earth with levels above and below a flat earth. He doesn't make that clear at all.

 

And he also allows the host to get away with claiming that Genesis got the sequence of creation right. Really?

 

So light existed before any sun, moon, or stars that make or reflect it? 

 

I suppose that dry land and grass were growing one day before the sun, moon, and stars existed, which, apparently, were created in order to mark things like "days, times, season, and years?" 

 

The firmament existed and then several days later the sun, moon, and stars were placed up in it? 

 

I can't believe that they got away with suggesting to the audience that Genesis some how gets the sequence of creation scientifically correct, aside from taking the days as literal 24 hour days. Craig is stretching things to claim that by God creating the "heavens" and the earth it could mean multiple universes and the earth by today's cosmology, even though it was directly aimed at the old near eastern cosmology of a multi-layered universe, a multi-layered single universe.

 

He also mentions that some people (like myself) see the multiverse as a metaphysical replacement for God, which is one of the problems he faces. Then the show cuts off so he doesn't go into detail. But that right there shows me that he understands the naturalist arguments and this little victory lap was a completely intellectually dishonest attempt at placing a supernatural flag in the ground in the minds of believers, who will most certainly face naturalists like ourselves who will be informing them otherwise. He knew exactly what he was doing the whole time. His mix matching of the old physics with the new is nothing more than a last attempt to salvage cosmology in favor of the Bible.

 

This to me is a clear case of trying to shore up the faith at any cost to honesty, truth, and integrity... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the expansions, guys.

 

Wm. Lane Craig wore an appalling tie.

 

How can this guy be stopped? Or maybe that question is unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I look down my pants, I see proof of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the expansions, guys.

 

Wm. Lane Craig wore an appalling tie.

 

How can this guy be stopped? Or maybe that question is unnecessary.

 

How can he be stopped from wearing appalling ties on tv?  GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

.

.

.

But seriously F...

 

 

He cannot be stopped.  Nor should he be,

Like the Westboro nutjobs, he has the democratic right to speak his mind and voice his opinion.  Like them he can be as wrong as wrong can be and he still has the right to speak.  He can be intellectually, morally and ethically wrong and still be entitled to speak.  He can lie, cheat and spout half-truths and still say his piece.

 

Like the Patriotic Guard, it's up to us to hold the line.

It's up to us to catch him out and call him out, for as long as it takes... for the sakes of those arriving at this site, looking for help and comfort and peace of mind.

 

On a positive note, time and evidence are on our side.

If the BICEP2 data is kosher, then it will be confirmed by other telescopes.  The case for Inflation will then become next to impossible to deny.  The next CMB data release from the Planck satellite is due out in October.  Inflationary theory is a general class of theories, btw... not just one specific formula.  So, encoded in the Planck data might be signals that indicate which model of Inflation is the correct one or which ones can be ruled out.  Thus, bringing us closer and closer to the truth.

 

Yes indeed.  Times, they are a-changing!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the expansions, guys.

 

Wm. Lane Craig wore an appalling tie.

 

How can this guy be stopped? Or maybe that question is unnecessary.

 

How can he be stopped from wearing appalling ties on tv?  GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

.

.

.

 

 

THAT exactly was my question!  Mua ha ha!!yelrotflmao.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'd love to see a debate between WLC and Guth about the interpretation of the BICEP2 data and whether or not it's open to prove the Bibilical creation correct. 

 

I don't see how these old earth creations can even hold ground. The sequence of creation in genesis is absolutely incorrect regardless of whether the creation is taken to be over long periods of time or not. Let's suppose each "evening and morning" are symbolic for some number of years. Let's say a billion or more years for each symbolic "evening and morning" in the texts.

 

That only sets up an even worse scientific type of scenario than the YEC proposal. 

 

So by the old earth creation way we see a type of claim where several billion years passed by before the sun, moon, and stars were made and placed up in the firmament, which, apparently existed for several billion years ( a few "evenings and mornings") before the luminaries were made by the Gods (Elohim) and placed up in the sky by this reasoning.

 

And on top of that several billion years had gone by with no way of counting any number of years in the first place because the counting of times and seasons, days, years and so on, happens on the fourth day when the luminaries are made and placed up in the sky, which then translates to several billion years (several "evenings and mornings") into the creation of the universe by OEC standards. So the earth and it's atmosphere exists for billions of years with plant life growing on dry land before the existence of the sun, it's moon, and all of the other suns (stars) in the visible universe (Milky Way).

 

OEC apologetics are like quick sand. The more the apologist struggles to overcome ill-logic in Genesis the deeper they sink......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ficino,

 

Here's how WLC can be stopped from wearing those appalling ties!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/tech/columnist/talkingyourtech/2013/04/14/2078813/

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A debate between Craig and Guth about the BICEP2 data, Josh?

 

I dunno.  Wendyshrug.gif

 

I think it would pan out in a similar way to Sean Carroll's recent debate with him.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

 

Nothing would change.

No matter what Guth might say, Craig won't be changing his mind, changing his arguments or changing anything anytime soon.   I said pretty much the same thing to End3 in the Den yesterday.  (Post #48 in the, "Would You Do It?" thread.)  In the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate, the latter said that nothing would cause him to change his beliefs, whereas the former said that evidence would. 

 

Closed minds!  PageofCupsNono.gif

Closed to the possibility of change.  Closed to the evidence.  Closed and locked shut, welded down, zipped up, straightjacketed, buckled up, padlocked, sealed and c-l-o-s-e-d.  These people aren't going to change, so imho Josh, the only point in having these debates is for the benefit of those with open minds.

.

.

.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ficino,

 

Here's how WLC can be stopped from wearing those appalling ties!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/tech/columnist/talkingyourtech/2013/04/14/2078813/

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Heh heh.  I don't think I can quite see Wm Lane Craig sporting a bow tie.  And it would probably turn out that it had been produced by the manufacturer already tied.  But Craig would have an argument to prove that he'd really tied it himself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

A debate between Craig and Guth about the BICEP2 data, Josh?

 

I dunno.  Wendyshrug.gif

 

I think it would pan out in a similar way to Sean Carroll's recent debate with him.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

 

Nothing would change.

No matter what Guth might say, Craig won't be changing his mind, changing his arguments or changing anything anytime soon.   I said pretty much the same thing to End3 in the Den yesterday.  (Post #48 in the, "Would You Do It?" thread.)  In the Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate, the latter said that nothing would cause him to change his beliefs, whereas the former said that evidence would. 

 

Closed minds!  PageofCupsNono.gif

Closed to the possibility of change.  Closed to the evidence.  Closed and locked shut, welded down, zipped up, straightjacketed, buckled up, padlocked, sealed and c-l-o-s-e-d.  These people aren't going to change, so imho Josh, the only point in having these debates is for the benefit of those with open minds.

.

.

.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA

I mean that I'd like to see Craig put on the spot for mix matching old BBT singularity ideas with the newer theories which are beyond it. Guth could point out that the new data does not in fact point to a singularity matching the creation ex nihilo ideas Craig is pushing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ficino,

 

Here's how WLC can be stopped from wearing those appalling ties!

 

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/tech/columnist/talkingyourtech/2013/04/14/2078813/

 

GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Heh heh.  I don't think I can quite see Wm Lane Craig sporting a bow tie.  And it would probably turn out that it had been produced by the manufacturer already tied.  But Craig would have an argument to prove that he'd really tied it himself.

 

 

If I were the interviewer, I'd find a way to prove whether or not he's telling the truth. At least I'd bring one of those untied bow-ties with me and ask him to put it on. No promises that he would co-operate but I'd challenge him that his integrity was at stake if he didn't show us on camera that he could tie a bow-tie as good as the one he was wearing. 

 

Of course, he could still come up with a convincing argument as to why I'm wrong.

 

 

I'm confused. "Talbot School of Philosophy"? And can you be a professor of philosophy from only an funda-gelical perspective? Weird. I gave up shortly after that. I'm tired of pseudo-intellectuals masquerading as scientists. 

 

Ugh.

 

I think his theology and philosophy doctorates are honest. According to Wikipedia he got those from legitimate universities in Germany and England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig#Academic_background However, I'm not sure how that training translates into the credentials to pass judgment on cutting-edge scientific break-throughs and insights, etc. In fact, it seems to me that an intellectually honest person would refrain from doing so. 

 

As for being intellectually honest. I've found that even in theology he fails on that account. I've listened to some of his online lectures about proof for the resurrection of Christ. He emphasizes that there are multiple accounts/attestations of Jesus' resurrection. That (multiple attestations) is official language for historical evidence. Since my own theology professors had already told me that no such thing existed, I listened very closely for Craig's "multiple attestations." 

 

It was hard to catch--so slick was he. He meant the four Gospel accounts and the five hundred or so Paul tells about.

 

I admit that's a lot of people if any of them ever existed and actually did see what the extant religious reports claim they saw.

 

Craig did not examine the authorship of the Gospels or even raise the topic. Nor did he look at who those five hundred were that the Apostle Paul references. He took all of it at face value and put it out there as court-approved witnesses, challenging the audience to dismiss so strong a testimony.

 

If this guy does that in his own field, why be surprised if he does it in fields where he has zero jurisdiction. It's what he does.

 

Like he has also been witnessed to say: Even if he were there and watched the sealed grave of Jesus for months and Jesus never rose from the dead, Craig would still believe in Jesus' resurrection.

 

I think some of this comes from the Contra Craig website. http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What scares me is the possibility that I'm going to find out people take sye ten bruggencate seriously too.

 

I suggest you not look, then.

 

Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It was hard to catch--so slick was he. He meant the four Gospel accounts and the five hundred or so Paul tells about.

 

I admit that's a lot of people if any of them ever existed and actually did see what the extant religious reports claim they saw.

 

Craig did not examine the authorship of the Gospels or even raise the topic. Nor did he look at who those five hundred were that the Apostle Paul references. He took all of it at face value and put it out there as court-approved witnesses, challenging the audience to dismiss so strong a testimony.

 

In the debate I saw betw Craig and Bart Ehrman, Craig said, not only were the five (I think) accounts. He said they were independent accounts. I am surprised that Ehrman never challenged that claim. Maybe it's because Ehrman is convinced that there were five independent, pre-gospel accounts: Paul, Mark, L, M and something else, maybe the Signs Gospel. Of course, three of these are hypothecized. I consider all the gospels as versions of the same story. Don't know where to fit Paul. Some critics make a point of doubting the authorship of the Paulines because they are not quoted by Justin Martyer in the mid second century, who you would think would quote them if he had them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I KNEWWW it!!   William Lane Craig is claiming victory.  On Fox Five.  As a commentator on science.

 

Holy fuck.

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3372449786001/do-new-big-bang-findings-support-the-bible--/#sp=show-clips

 

The bible says, "In the beginning....." in its illustration of the start of the universe.... how utterly extraordinary is that? Therefore, Jebus!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.