|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Indeed, if anything constituted an explanation then the existence of everything was contingent on that thing, then that thing would stand in need of an explanation, and so wouldn't be the answer we were looking for. This is false. William Lane Craig provides a concise answer to the above assertion. For this reason I will quote it directly.
First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer. Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticl... Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Where does he "mis-quote-mine" Dawkins?
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Am I not allowed to reply to one of Dr A's initial thoughts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
If you're going to say he mis-quote-mined Dawkins, don't you have to show how he did so?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
I was responding to Dr A's initial thought because it was faulty. One doesn't need an explanation of the explanation for it to be the best explantion. Therefore, God answers the question why there is something rather than nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank-you for your kind response Mr. Jack. You're right, I understand my error. bluegenes and Dr. A were trying to explain the same thing to me, but it makes more sense the way you explained it.
The question does seem impossible to answer. The only thing I can think of is that God is eternal, meaning He had no beginning and He has no end. That still doesn't answer the question of why He is there instead of not there, it just means He has always been there. The why seems impossible to answer. Also, thank-you Stile for your polite replies to my posts. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
It doesn't appear to me that W.L.C mis-represented Dawkins. He was summarizing Dawkins' arguments not quoting him directly. Can you please explain to me how how Craig's summarization sentence affected or distorted what Dawkins actually wrote? Is it because he didn't include the words "so far"?
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
No, he didn't claim Dawkins had written that. From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whether his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. W.L.C does not explicitly say that he intended to quote directly. That's something you're assuming based on your reading of the sentence.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
The list is not direct quotes, Craig never claims that they are. All he did was replace "crane so far" with "explanation". This doesn't compromise the meaning of the sentence, it simply makes it more understandable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Again, there's no clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly. Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined:
|
Very bad example. First, you claimed to be quoting me, something Craig did not do of Dawkins. Also, you altered the meaning of what I said, something Craig did not do of Dawkins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins diectly. Panda writes:
Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given. Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly. Panda writes:
This is a statement about what Dr. Craig actually did. Since Dr. Craig actually did claim he was quoting directly, can you please show me where that is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Panda writes:
As Dr. A showed (in Message 161), Dr. Craig also acted as if he had quoted directly. We aren't discussing whether he acted as if he had quoted directly. We are discussing whether he did actually claim he was quoting directly. Again I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly? Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Dr. Craig writes:
On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows: Panda writes:
It is Dr. Craig claiming that he is quoting Dawkins directly. No it's not. He cites Dawkins' work but he does not indicate that he intends to quote any part of Dawkins' book directly. For the third time I'll ask, where did Dr. Craig actually claim he was quoting directly?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024