Wednesday, September 26, 2018

... on a Physicist who Debated WLC

Some people are very easily pleased with "proofs" that atheism is viable.

William Lane Craig vs An Actual Scientist
TMM | 6.III.2014

1:13 "this kind of Aristotelian [...] causation was cutting-edge stuff 2500 years ago, today we know better"

Or we don't, because outmoding Aristotle is not a valid way of debunking him.

"//if the universe began to exist, it has a trascendental cause//"

That was not the premiss, that was the conclusion.

"you will not find the word/phrase 'transcendental cause' " (anywhere in a standard physics' text book)

So? It's not the kind of question a standard physics' textbook is supposed to be dealing with!

And things do not pop into existence without causes. Whatever a physicist may be imagining on that one.

The "real scientist" here reminds me slightly of a Swiss dramatist's representation of Die Physiker ... they were in a madhouse.

OK, without being actually mad, but still.

2:42 Guth Flanken theorem - well possible.

[watching video without headphones, and going by subtitles]

Here is another reason why the universe we are dealing with needs a beginning.

  • 1) It contains Hydrogen.
  • 2) Hydrogen is all the time depleted in stellar fusional processes (at least in the standard models for astrophysics) by fusing into Helium
  • 3) and Helium never gets back to Hydrogen.

Therefore, in a universe with an infinite past, the Hydrogen would be all used up an infinite past ago.

Hence, our universe had a start. H/T to Dom whoever that benedictine was, who was cited by Revd Bryan Houghton in Unwanted Priest.

Found him, Stanley L. Jaki, o.s.b.

Cited in Unwanted Priest or at least French translation Prêtre rejeté which includes a translation of a pamphlet of his too.

Sorry for misciting the coauthor of the theorem. Found it:

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.

Creationwiki : Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem

Here is one in memoriam for Father Houghton, anyway:

Rejected Priest: Fr. Bryan Houghton
Una Voce (after November 19th, 1992)

3:42 "Alan Guth does not believe the universe is eternal because it's a hunch or personal preference, it's because he's a scientist and he's trying to develop models that fit the data"

Well, Guth preferring "as a scientist" an eternal universe, despite Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, would perhaps be like, he understands too well that a universe with a beginning needs a cause from outside the universe. In other words, because "as a scientist" one of the "data" he's trying to fit things with is his absence of God.

My experience with scientists is, they have a lot of atheist bias. Lawrence Krauss has shown his anti-theistic bias on record.

6:10 - 6:19 "that's a good thing that helps us distinguish between viable models of the multiverse and non-viable models, and there are plenty of viable models where the Boltzmann brain or random fluctuations do not dominate"

Picking and choosing are we?

Seriously, I think this shows some "atheist bias" not in the sense directed against Theism, Platonic or Christian, but in the sense directed against Homeric Paganism.

No comments: