Page 1 of 1

"Refutation" of the Cosmological Argument (AndromedasWake)

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:06 am
by SnowDrops
Warning, here comes AndromedasWake.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Dmc_a_E ... re=related

So he says that these constants don't exist, but rather they are something made up in the theories of cosmology, physics and other areas of science. Since they don't actually exist, there is no fine-tuning because they might as well be necessary. There are 3 false premises here though:

A - 1) This video, though the guy tries to avoid it, is actually saying the current theories are false and later on a theory will be made that explains away all the "fine-tuning" and renders the argument false, we just don't know it yet (science-of-the-gaps).
2) At least some of these constants are indisputably real, like say the relation of quarks to anti-quarks. We know there
are both and we know that if there was an equal amount then there couldn't be galaxies, planets, etc. - much less
complex organisms, like say dogs. Then again, he believes that different things are really just different arrangements
of matter. Can that apply then even to basic pieces of matter?
B - Since he says there are no actual constants or such to tweak -
3) This abolishes absolute truth, since practically anything can happen (there's no actual rules, just things we make up to
explain the universe). I suppose you could say logic is an exception (even God is subject to logic), but it allows for
literally any kind of scientific laws.
4) Since there can be any kind of scientific laws, there are an infinite amount of possible universes, which means the
probability of this universe is literally infinity to one. But isn't that a contradiction?
5_A) If something is infinitely improbable than it's probability is equivalent to 0, so it's actually
impossible.
5_B) If something is improbable than no matter how improbable, it is still possible - unless it's
probability is equivalent to 0.

C1: There must be a limited amount of universes possible for any universe to be possible, at the very least on an atheistic view.
C2: To deny C1 you would have to deny absolute truth completely, even logic, philosophy, existence, etc. in which case I can say AW is crazy and I will be meeting him at the mental hospital tommorow at 3 o'Clock. 8-}2 Well can I be sure that I won't?
The idea of a lack of absolute truth is also self-refuting though. Can you be absolutely sure that you can't be absolutely sure?

I was laughing at the end of the video. The level of philosophy on Youtube is ridiculous. Then again, it's like me before I got into apologetics (well more or less). :shakehead:

Re: "Refutation" of the Cosmological Argument (AndromedasWak

Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:57 pm
by Katabole
Seems to me he has never read Dr. John Lennox's book, 'God's Undertaker. Has Science Buried God?'

In chapter 4 of his book titled 'Designer Universe', Lennox demolishes the multi-universe theory. He quotes philosopher Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University. "If every possible universe exists, then there must be a universe in which God exists since his existence is logically possible. Since God is not only omnipotent but also omnipresent, the He must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, our universe, in which He is both Creator and Upholder." The concept of a multi-universe as Lennox writes, in which there are multiple copies of me, and where in one of those universes I am a murderer or worse, leads only to moral absurdity.

Lennox also quotes Arno Penzias, the scientist who discovered the background microwave radiation from the big bang. Penizias says,"The best data we have concerning (the big bang), are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole."

It's just the same old argument, twisted, to appeal to those who want to rid the human world of the One True God because the idea that a personal creator God is going to judge individuals after death is not only morally repugnant to the new atheists, but fearfully terrifying, and they would rather believes lies in the form of pseudo-science, false philosophy and metaphysics than to believe that they are sinners desperately in need of redemption in Christ.

Re: "Refutation" of the Cosmological Argument (AndromedasWak

Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:17 am
by SnowDrops
Yup. What I find especially interesting is not only did he deny philosophy, he denied all of modern science. Besides, 4 and 5 basically destroy the idea of infinite universes, since that would be a logical contradiction.