God is not a Good Theory – Sean Carroll (Full)

God is not a Good Theory - Sean Carroll  (Full)

(Is “God” Explanatory) from the “Philosophy of Cosmology” project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
Video Rating: 4 / 5

Be Sociable, Share!

25 Responses to “God is not a Good Theory – Sean Carroll (Full)”

  • switch229 says:

    He mentions the Cosmological argument and says all he has to do is say,
    “maybe not everything needs a cause. That’s an empirical claim.”
    The Cosmological argument hinges in the universe not being past-eternal as
    a logical necessity. Since an actual infinite cannot exist in reality, we
    KNOW the universe had to have a cause (also supported by the BGV theorem).
    If we keep going back through a series of causes, we have to eventually
    get to a first cause of the events that would be past eternal and an actual
    infinite would exist in the past which cannot exist in even a multiverse,
    thus “transcendent”.
    Here’s “arm-chair” evidence his claim *cannot* be true.
    Fail #2?

  • TruthUnadulterated says:

    I know he said he would not take the philosophical approach and it is
    obvious. His rationale is not good. Because he does not have a firm grasp
    on logic, he undermines his reasoning by implying that empirical testing
    trumps rationalism (pure logic itself). It is logic that we rely on
    ultimately that acts as the foundation even to empiricism. Empiricism has
    its place as the confirming or dis-confirming TOOL that operates WITHIN THE
    PARAMETERS of logical rationalism. It could be no other way. In fact, we
    often find that when natural scientists (who typically are not
    philosophically skilled) do NOT do the “armchair “philosophizing, they are
    the ones who find themselves getting particular things wrong and resisting
    accepting that it is wrong or very probably wrong because all logical
    possibilities were not even brought to mind. It’s ironic that Carroll would
    be against considering all logical possibilities apart from empirical
    testing (which can only LOGICALLY act as a confirming/dis-confirming TOOL)
    but then be for considering all “logical” possibilities concerning the
    origin of the universe that LOGICALLY would not be subject empirical
    testing. What’s especially significant is the language Carroll uses. His
    ultimate case is that the universe as we seem to know it is a contingent
    one with causal relationships in a descriptive non-conscious way. But he
    goes on to say essentially, “but who’s to say that the universe exists in a
    contingent causal way? For all we know the empirically tested (shown this
    way as contingent and causally related just to even accept that science is
    being done at all), MAY NOT be as such.” Well, the obvious LOGICAL PROBLEM
    here is that, Carroll has now removed any logical basis to promote
    empirical science at all. Because LOGICALLY IF scientific work is taking
    place, THEN it follows logically that the universe must be intelligible
    operating by causal laws. But if that’s the case, then we are right back to
    where logic had us in the first place, namely that logical rationalism
    TECHNICALLY is the foundation of even empiricism, not the other way around.
    It also means that Carroll is not making any logical inroads at all, but
    rather is just vacillating between logic and illogic. It still remains
    that the only thing even theoretically capable logically of being a
    self-moving and therefore on some level necessarily self-sustaining reality
    is a Will. A will implies personhood/consciousness, therefore, it’s not
    merely the fact that believers juts WANT God to be the Logos of the
    Universe, it’s also the fact that you LOGICALLY cannot even be justified
    when you try to open your mouth and communicate to teach that God is not
    necessary. God, as it turns out LOGICALLY is the necessary LOGICAL
    foundational grounds to have ultimate logical coherency in the world.

  • switch229 says:

    His contention against the fine-tuning of the universe is valid. We cannot
    imagine all possible universes and so there might be many that are
    conducive to a universe (though cosmologists agree few are likely
    feasible). The fine-tuning argument has a valid structure but since
    premise two is not logically necessary, the conclusion is also not
    logically necessary.
    So…. Score #1?

  • Andre Lols says:

    The argument that apologetics use for the fine tune of the universe is
    bullshit. If god is omnipotent and all powerful he can create life in any
    kind on universe. Why would god give a fuck about the mass of the electron
    or the inflation of the universe if he is omnipotent? If god exists, and he
    is omnipotent and all powerful he can make all kinds of life inside all
    kinds of universe. Why would he play by the rules of physics?

  • switch229 says:

    He asks the question, “What would we expect the universe to be like if God
    created one?”
    If we’re talking about an all-knowing, all-powerful being (just one example
    to use as a counter argument), we cannot, from our limited perspective and
    limited power “guess” what the best possible universe is and thus can make
    no probability claims about what we should expect.
    Fail #3?

  • Gord Davison says:

    I agree with the statement in the title but I am not sure if I would call
    belief in a God a theory. It is an hypothesis based on no scientific
    evidence whatsoever, no model, no physical evidence, not a leg to stand on.
    The God hypothesis sounds more like a scam than anything else. But then
    again it’s based on what you wish to be true so like a conspiracy theory
    it’s easy to accept. 

  • Aguijon1982 says:

    Its funny how theists are always saying “where did the laws of physics come
    from, they cant come from nowhere”, but this God crap never needs to come
    from anywhere.

  • Granualt says:

    The fine – tuning is INFINIT!! Proof of God!!

  • mandar patil says:

    Carroll shows that if you put together 1. Finetuning of fundamental
    constants 2. Our current knowledge of cosmology 3. Bayesian statistics then
    one can show that the posterior probability of God being a good theory
    given the data we have is of the order of 10^(-10^(120)).

    Amazing talk !!! Loved it !!!

  • switch229 says:

    The problems of evil and suffering have already been refuted ad nauseam.
    I’ll be charitable and count these as one.
    Fail #4?

  • switch229 says:

    So, in 53 minutes, he biffed on four philosophical points. Perhaps he
    should have been in the “arm-chair” at home a little longer before he
    attempted to tackle these logical arguments. A quadriplegic with a chip in
    his brain to control a mouse on a computer could have refuted this guy
    soundly.
    He is right that the fine-tuning of the universe is in no way certain
    evidence for God.

  • nbg321 says:

    Look guys you can stop arguing. God appeared before me and told me he
    doesnt exist. Case closed.

  • cleverest says:

    48:46 to 51:03 – I have to admit, I do find these arguments (in this
    section) to be compelling ones, and they challenge me to at least question
    some of my own theistic convictions. I’m surprised to say that, but WOW
    what a step above in quality for most arguments against God that I’ve seen
    advanced. (there are soooo many poor ones, and yes the other direction
    too)

  • dffykvn says:

    God looks like a gigantic squid headed monster.

    Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Ry’leh Phtagn Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Ry’leh Phtagn!!!

  • Chris Hazl says:

    First, you have remove the religious view of “God” and think quantum, a
    collective intelligence, there you will find the God you reject.

  • pokemon2000bc says:

    i believe that is God is real so i am a christian. this is a bullshit video

  • avoided2007 says:

    We don’t need god, we have SEAN CARROLL! And he ownz!

  • switch229 says:

    So his first argument, with one particle existing on its own in a vacuum
    always existed and will always exist (eternal) AND is unchanged (no cause).
    So, in his possible universe that’s supposed to defeat the Cosmological
    argument (he’s attacking several arguments with this counter-argument so I
    can defend any one I choose to defeat the C-A) there is an eternal uncaused
    cause that is necessary true for this universe to exist.
    Hmmmm…. fail #1?

  • Silver Hadoken says:

    The only way to find out if god is real (which I believe) is to die.. but
    it would be unfortunate for all the atheist if he was.just saying.

  • atam mardes says:

    People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Dan Dennett,
    Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Carl Sagon
    and others along with James Randi are valuable voices of reason and should
    be respected for their efforts to awaken the delusional gullible naive and
    put away the snide scam artists who pretend to represent an invisible god
    promoting superstitions, the faith healers, the psychics, the necromancers,
    the tarot card readers and the astrologers.

  • Karl Muster says:

    I think his argument is so strong because he tries really hard to give
    creationism a fair chance, but it still comes short.

  • rumraket38 says:

    god’s arse was torn a new one here. 

  • dkthg says:

    no gods; just live your life.

  • sunsidhe says:

    Carroll is very impressive here.

  • jacopman says:

    There are a lot of comments here claiming supernatural experiences such as
    visions, near death experiences, etc…………please realize that all of
    them have natural underlying explanations which can be documented and
    replicated within neuro stimulation at will within a medical environment. A
    good place to start understanding this is the Sagan book “the demon haunted
    world”

Leave a Reply


Search MikeAdkins.com:
Article Categories
Most Popular Articles
    .