A Philosophical Reason to Think the Universe Had a Beginning — Stand to Reason Podcast
Greg talks about a philosophical reason to think the universe had a beginning and discusses the difference between the brain and the mind, then he answers a question about tactics one can use when talking to people about creation vs. evolution.
0:00 An update on our Reality Student Apologetics Conference and upcoming events
5:38 A philosophical reason to think the universe had a beginning;
18:57 The difference between the brain and the mind
36:55 Tactics for talking to people about creation vs. evolution
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity #Worldviews #Science #Philosophy
————— MENTIONED ON THIS SHOW —————
Greg’s response to Genetically Modified Skeptic Part 1:
https://www.str.org/w/a-response-to-genetically-modified-skeptic-part-1
Greg’s response to Genetically Modified Skeptic Part 2:
https://www.str.org/w/a-response-to-genetically-modified-skeptic-part-2
————— CALL IN TO THE SHOW —————
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl, live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time, at (855) 243-9975.
————— SUBMIT YOUR QUESTION —————
If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time for the broadcast, or if you’d like to submit a question for the #STRask podcast, fill out our form at https://www.str.org/training/broadcast.
————— FIND MORE FREE TRAINING —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
————— CONNECT —————
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
Correct, the theory of evolution doesn’t explain the origin of life or the universe….because it’s not supposed to. So making it some big point doesn’t work. It’s not some hidden thing that science hides.
Those who believe a god is still necessary to explain the universe that works for you, but it doesn’t work for many and it doesn’t make it a fact of reality.
c. 26 mins – Why do you imagine that the physical characteristics of your thoughts/dreams of a carpet should have the same physical characteristics as a carpet? The physical characteristics of a painting of a carpet or a movie of a carpet aren't the same as those of a carpet. They are different but still both physical things. So "cracking open" your skull, if we had the capacity to map it in detail, might reveal a physical brain state that corresponds to a dream/thought/memory about/of a carpet. I see no reason to think that this should be the same physical thing as a carpet nor something non-physical. This law of indiscernibility would only appear to establish that your dream of a carpet is not a carpet … that doesn't feel like a surprising thing whether they are both physical or not.
Your thoughts being first person private may only be a limitation on our ability to determine your brain state. There are now some rudimentary thoughts that, with the right equipment, aren't private at all. It doesn't seem too far fetched to similarly imagine the potential to have someone spot the idea of a shag pile carpet in just the physical state of your brain. What prevents it may only be the means to do so, not because we are looking in the wrong place.
I come across the driver and car analogy repeatedly. Both are needed to go somewhere (although less so these days given driverless cars!). But this doesn't suggest to me that the brain is not the thing doing the driving. One thing that makes me inclined to think that it may well be just the brain is the many ways in which we can influence the intended journey through mere physical intervention. Drugs, damage, illness etc. can not only break the "mechanical" parts of someone such that they cannot travel, they can also make profound differences to whether someone wants or wishes to travel. Why should physical things have such an impact if the driver is a distinct non-physical thing that is free to choose whether it wants to travel somewhere?
Greg and Dr. Craig not being able to comprehend an actually infinite past when we can easily model them just befuddles me.
Just because you as a finite observer can’t count an actually infinite set, does not mean an actually infinite set could not exist. If a planet always has orbited, you can’t count how many orbits the planet has made with a finite number, there is no issue with this. The prediction of inflation and relativity leading to a beginning, leads us to the beginning of Inflation, not to the beginning of the universe.
Clearly Greg has either not read or listened to or doesn’t care to consider or respond to the latest critiques of this part of the Kalam.
One has to accept one fringe physics hypothesis after another to come to think this premise is demonstrable.
"Time of the Gaps" everything they explain by a really long time.
There are not two specific kinds of evolution (43:20). What Mr Koukl labels "microevolution" is more properly called "variation".
Hey, speaking of color and wavelengths of light, the color magenta does not have a wavelength; it is not on the spectrum. Your brain makes it up. Look into it.