• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Religion = Child; Science = Adult

I agree that science successfully discovers reality. I just find it limited in its scope of reality because reality is more than what can be directly observed.

Science can also discover that which can be indirectly observed.

Completely agree. In context there we have two realms of “more”. One is the realm of the supernatural which I was referring to there. The other as you indicated was the realm of nature not directly observed.
 
Thank you for your sincere reply. I would like to address your understanding of our “approaches.”

The term worldview would of course include your subset delineations of approaches.

So your approach is to examine the evidence and try to find causes, explanations and/or hypotheses based on it that evidence.

Your view of my approach is to start with a book of myths and decide that everything we discover about reality must have some counterpart in this book.

I think you were pretty clear there.


Now here is my take on the matter …..

Your view of my approach could not be more wrong. My approach is more like yours. AKA Natural Theology. The evidence is critical. Let me repeat that …evidence is critical. I look at the evidence and try to find causes, explanations and/or hypotheses from the same evidence you are looking at. No Bible required. Where we differ is this, I can entertain, when warranted, a supernatural cause, explanation and/or hypothesis.

Uh-huh. Let me ask you this, were you raised as a Christian, or did you convert after your investigation of the evidence?

I know you conveniently don’t believe in a distinction between natural/supernatural and I’ll directly address that here…. You believe only in reality as mentioned before and I can agree with that to a great extent. But you, in your “approach,” you redefine reality to be nature only thus eliminating supernatural causes, explanations and/or hypotheses. Here is what I mean…..
Things either exist in reality or they don't. If we can observe them, they are potential objects of inquiry whose effects on other objects of inquiry can be examined. If they have no effects on anything, they aren't going to be part of any explanation about how stuff works. This schema exhausts all possibilities for explaining reality without once invoking any notion of "natural", "material", "physical", or otherwise. I didn't even mention science.
……. your very first word “Things”, by your own reasoning can only pertain to the natural. Thus

What?? You're basing all of what follows, all of what you assume about my worldview, on the fact that I used the word thing? A thing is just some object of inquiry, remez! It can be a bacterial sample, a ghost, a UFO, an angel, or a deity. If you're not going to allow me to use the most neutral term possible without hitting the giant red methodological naturalism buzzer and running away, we're not going to get very far in this discussion.

Thus through your tortured reduction of semantics you conveniently eliminate supernatural causes, explanations and/or hypotheses. So your philosophical method/approach methodologically considers only natural causes, explanations and/or hypotheses. Hence you’re a methodological naturalist. Thus your “approach” is inherently self-defeating. Science is perfectly restricted to natural causes, explanations and/or hypotheses our knowledge is not. Science is a subset of knowledge.

But I explicitly avoided any mention of science. My point was that any phenomenon (better? a phenomenon is literally just an event, a happening, what appears to us), whatever category you wish to file it under, either has observable effects or it doesn't. If it does, we have something to work with. If it doesn't, it's useless at explaining anything. This applies EQUALLY to temperature gradients, the power of prayer, and telepathic communication. I rule none of these out beforehand based on any pre-existing ontological schema.

It could have easily been the case that, in the process of explaining some phenomenon fully, it turned out that the most reasonable explanation was that God was responsible for it. So far, this has happened zero times.
Let’s investigate then. What is the best case for the cause of the universe?

I don't know. But I do know what some of the worst cases are, and creation ex nihilo by God is one of them.

This is not because God is "outside of nature" or immaterial; once again, those words are just defense strategies you are hiding behind that don't really mean anything in the context of predicting how reality behaves.
You are guilty of the very process you throw against me. Your words are just defense strategies you are hiding behind so you can avoid examining the best cause/explanation of the universe. You are simply burying your head in the sand to avoid the truth. Those terms simply don’t exist in your part of the beach.

Alright, alright. So, if you're so confident that I'm wrong about that, please explain to me the difference between natural and supernatural.

How the universe behaves is in a different category than an explanation of its cause.

No, because the only way we can ascertain an explanation of the cause of ANYTHING is to look at the present and work backwards. None of us were here when it all began. All we have is the way that the universe works, the way it responds to how we interrogate it, and the shape it takes as a result of what happened in the past. All of that is "behavior" in a very broad sense. To figure out the cause of an explosion, we have to look at the aftermath today, now, and get a sense of how the remaining parts are correlated to each other, and how well they are explained by the hypotheses we are testing.

I agree that the SBBM of the universe is the best explanation of how it behaves and that God is the best explanation of its cause. Thus I’m not hiding from anything.

That's the second time you've used the word "thus" when what comes after it doesn't follow in any way from what comes before it.

You do NOT get to claim exemption from the commonplace requirement that explanations must be demonstrable in terms of some observable phenomenon, purely on the semantic dodge of invented categories like "natural".
There you go again….this commonplace observable nature. Look you are forcibly stating that all knowledge must be confined to natural phenomena. And that is how you avoid dealing with all of reality. That is how you deny that the supernatural exists. This process you use to limit knowledge is not scientific, it is philosophical and needs a defense.

I don't know what else to tell you. What issue do you have with the requirement that explanations should have observable implications? If an explanation doesn't say anything one way or another about what we should expect to observe, then it can't be weighed against other explanations in any rational way. Do you really think that "observable" means "natural"? And you say you're committed to evidence?

- - - Updated - - -

Science can also discover that which can be indirectly observed.

Completely agree. In context there we have two realms of “more”. One is the realm of the supernatural which I was referring to there. The other as you indicated was the realm of nature not directly observed.

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that the supernatural cannot be observed directly nor indirectly. Is this accurate?
 
Science can also discover that which can be indirectly observed.

Completely agree. In context there we have two realms of “more”. One is the realm of the supernatural which I was referring to there. The other as you indicated was the realm of nature not directly observed.

I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?
 
Completely agree. In context there we have two realms of “more”. One is the realm of the supernatural which I was referring to there. The other as you indicated was the realm of nature not directly observed.

I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Interesting how these conversations usually come down to such questions. The word and its definition are a classic example of question begging.
 
I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Interesting how these conversations usually come down to such questions. The word and its definition are a classic example of question begging.

I have found that a great many arguments are actually caused by a difference in the definitions of words used.
 
Completely agree. In context there we have two realms of “more”. One is the realm of the supernatural which I was referring to there. The other as you indicated was the realm of nature not directly observed.

I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Good question and I agree with your notion of definitional conflicts. In the context of my discussions I’m referring to ……..

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1. 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureb : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

………… number 1 not 2. So it would be an equivocation error on any objector’s part to counter with examples of 2.
While we are at it……..

In this context when I’m referring nature I’m referring to the universe. By which I mean all of physical reality. All space, time, matter and energy. That which science can study. Ex. He dedicated his life to studying nature.

Generally here is my case.

The universe had a complete beginning. (Supported by science)

Thus I’m asserting the nature had a complete beginning, all space, time, matter and energy began to exist. (Supported by logic)

Thus a cause it needed. (Supported by logic)

The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful (Supported by forensic science)

The cause must be a personal creator (philosophy/logic)

I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)

Inferring the cause of the universe to be God, who transcends nature…..definition 1 from above not 2. (Supported by logic)

Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.

Further focus…..the context of my participation here was … Theism and science are compatible.

No doubt you folks will disagree. I welcome opposition, but you must defend your counters as reasonable. Every one of them. You don’t just get to say something is wrong and not defend it. That’s where we will battle over the epistemologies. The core of ones worldview.
 
We have laid out our “approaches” and reasonably some confusion remains. So let’s investigate an actual area of contention and see what get. Because this…..
I don't know what else to tell you. What issue do you have with the requirement that explanations should have observable implications? If an explanation doesn't say anything one way or another about what we should expect to observe, then it can't be weighed against other explanations in any rational way. Do you really think that "observable" means "natural"? And you say you're committed to evidence?
….as written has interesting possibilities. Ok, here is the field of investigation….
Let’s investigate then. What is the best case for the cause of the universe?
I don't know. But I do know what some of the worst cases are, and creation ex nihilo by God is one of them.
I briefly stated my case for God’s existence based on the universe beginning to exist in post 86. Now how is that case worse than Hawking’s Grand Design?

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.
— Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design, 2010

This should allow us to further explore our “approaches.”
Again once we get below the surface.
The issues of our differing "approaches" will most likely appear.

Remember my main contention here is.....Science and theism are vastly compatible.
 
I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)
Your assertion is classic question begging and utterly unsupportable with any evidence whatsoever.

Santa lives!
 
I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Good question and I agree with your notion of definitional conflicts. In the context of my discussions I’m referring to ……..

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1. 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureb : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

………… number 1 not 2. So it would be an equivocation error on any objector’s part to counter with examples of 2.
While we are at it……..

Either something that satisfies definition 1 can interact with or leave an observable trace in the universe or it can't. Those are the only two options. If it can, it is a legitimate object of scrutiny and, dare I say it, scientific investigation. If not, it might as well not exist because it's identical in all directly and indirectly ascertainable respects to something that doesn't exist.

In this context when I’m referring nature I’m referring to the universe. By which I mean all of physical reality. All space, time, matter and energy. That which science can study. Ex. He dedicated his life to studying nature.

Generally here is my case.

The universe had a complete beginning. (Supported by science)

Actually, this is by no means settled. The observable universe in our 13.8 billion light-year radius had a beginning, but we have no reason to believe this represents "all space, time, matter and energy". There could very easily be a larger manifold in which these things exist, currently beyond our ability to access. The larger reality in which our observable universe may reside could itself have a beginning, or no beginning. We don't know. But, in order to proceed with your argument, I'm willing to grant your assumption for the moment.

Thus I’m asserting the nature had a complete beginning, all space, time, matter and energy began to exist. (Supported by logic)

Thus a cause it needed. (Supported by logic)

This is not supported by logic. For it to be supported by logic, you need an extra premise: everything that begins to exist has a cause. However, even if you include this premise the argument fails, because the truth of the premise is itself unupported. For one thing, we have never seen something begin to exist, strictly speaking. Everything we have seen 'begin' actually was just a reconfiguration of existing parts. We have never seen something begin to exist where nothing existed before, so we have no reason to think a cause is necessary in that situation. Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused. But again, in order to keep going, I will grant this extremely contentious premise of yours and assume the universe began to exist and had a cause.

The cause must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, and incredibly powerful (Supported by forensic science)

I had to suppress a chuckle here. Forensic science? Anyway, this premise is also problematic for several reasons.

You have often used the term 'categorical fallacy' in this thread. I believe that asserting the cause of any phenomenon to be 'timeless' is such a fallacy. The concept of causation is inextricably tied to the concept of time. Causes must come before their effects. It cannot therefore be coherently said that anything caused time itself to begin, because it would have had to take place 'beforehand', which is a contradiction in terms as it would require the existence of the very thing whose creation is being explained.

Secondly, your assertion that something 'incredibly powerful' must have been the cause is not supported by anything, least of all forensics. All of our estimations of how much power is required to do something are based on observations made in the universe, in the context of laws and magnitudes that presumably would not apply outside of that context. We know it would take an incredibly strong force to break a planet in half because within our universe, there are fundamental forces keeping things like planets together. Without any larger context to set limits on what can and cannot be done, nothing about power can be asserted... again, it's a category error.

The cause must be a personal creator (philosophy/logic)

This is a huge leap. You have absolutely no reason to make this claim based on the foregoing premises, even if they were all true. Why couldn't the cause of the universe be an incredibly powerful, timeless, immaterial event that was not a personal creator? You can't just say "philosophy/logic" and call it a day!

I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)

Inferring the cause of the universe to be God, who transcends nature…..definition 1 from above not 2. (Supported by logic)

One last time, I have to stop you. Your last clause there, "God, who transcends nature" is written as if God is already proven to exist and to have the characteristic of transcending nature. No such proof is implicit in your argument or any other, as far as I know. God may or may not exist, and may or may not transcend nature in either case. The only way to make the rhetorical jump you just made is to define God as "that which transcends nature"... but then you have to stick with that definition, and not smuggle in anything else! You cannot say, okay, now that I have proven God created the universe, everything my favorite religion says about him must be true. This is very important for you to understand: even if there were no problems whatsoever with your argument, all it would have proven is that an entity who transcends nature created the universe. Not God the Father, YHWH, Jehova, Elohim, or whatever name Christians prefer to use. Thus, you have not actually presented anything that supports Christianity. It supports deism at best.

Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.

Cute. So if I wrote down a description that more closely matched this God than the Bible does, you would adopt it?

I should point out the irony that forensic science is actually the examination of a crime scene, which is about the best that can be said of your argument, I'm afraid.

Further focus…..the context of my participation here was … Theism and science are compatible.

No doubt you folks will disagree. I welcome opposition, but you must defend your counters as reasonable. Every one of them. You don’t just get to say something is wrong and not defend it. That’s where we will battle over the epistemologies. The core of ones worldview.

The problem is that none of what you presented accords with scientific evidence except for the notion that the universe had a beginning, which is still yet to be conclusively demonstrated. Every other move you made is a deduction from that one premise, and a shoddy deduction at that.

But this is all window dressing.

The difference between religion and science comes down to epistemologies, as you rightly point out.

So I will ask you one simple question, and I need you to answer it honestly. Your answer will illustrate whether you are actually a person who follows evidence, or someone who defers to a holy book. Here is my question.

If it were conclusively proven that the universe had no beginning, would you renounce your belief in Christianity?
 
You have heard of Occam's razor - well let's use Ramaraksha's Razor - all religions are earth-bound ideas - just ideas of people just like you and me living a long time ago - simple explanations that's all

No offense intended... but that is still just Occam's Razor... classically used.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB2di69FmhE[/YOUTUBE]
 
If it were conclusively proven that the universe had no beginning, would you renounce your belief in Christianity?
The universe or any part thereof, I would think. For if one is going to claim there are things with beginnings and things without beginnings one would think that is based on observation, and not religious fervor.
 
I have my own definition of "supernatural" but I don't know what yours is. Can you tell me what you think that word means?

Good question and I agree with your notion of definitional conflicts. In the context of my discussions I’m referring to ……..

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

1. 1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2. 2a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of natureb : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

………… number 1 not 2. So it would be an equivocation error on any objector’s part to counter with examples of 2.


So, by your definition the supernatural is unobservable.
 
If I understand remez correctly, he is using the word 'supernatural' to refer to a concept that fulfills a certain role in his argument. He needs something that is outside of time, yet can operate within time in order to cause things (like universes), something he can claim is powerful--but not in any quantifiable sense of the word--and something that does not need to be demonstrated empirically. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to provide a hypothesis for the cosmos from his computer desk. For the purposes of this discussion, we could just define 'supernatural' as 'the thing that remez believes allows him to claim he has an explanation for the origin of the universe.' It doesn't refer to anything actual beyond that.
 
If I understand remez correctly, he is using the word 'supernatural' to refer to a concept that fulfills a certain role in his argument. He needs something that is outside of time, yet can operate within time in order to cause things (like universes), something he can claim is powerful--but not in any quantifiable sense of the word--and something that does not need to be demonstrated empirically. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to provide a hypothesis for the cosmos from his computer desk. For the purposes of this discussion, we could just define 'supernatural' as 'the thing that remez believes allows him to claim he has an explanation for the origin of the universe.' It doesn't refer to anything actual beyond that.

If the supernatural exists entirely outside of the natural then we can't interact with or observe it in anyway and thus its existence is superfluous. If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural. For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature. If it could be explained (even if it were currently unexplainable) through natural processes then it's not supernatural, just some natural process that we might not fully understand. Kind of the whole "aliens as gods" and "technology as magic" approach. But to be truly supernatural it would have to be able to come into the natural world and violate natural law.
 
If I understand remez correctly, he is using the word 'supernatural' to refer to a concept that fulfills a certain role in his argument. He needs something that is outside of time, yet can operate within time in order to cause things (like universes), something he can claim is powerful--but not in any quantifiable sense of the word--and something that does not need to be demonstrated empirically. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to provide a hypothesis for the cosmos from his computer desk. For the purposes of this discussion, we could just define 'supernatural' as 'the thing that remez believes allows him to claim he has an explanation for the origin of the universe.' It doesn't refer to anything actual beyond that.

If the supernatural exists entirely outside of the natural then we can't interact with or observe it in anyway and thus its existence is superfluous. If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural. For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature. If it could be explained (even if it were currently unexplainable) through natural processes then it's not supernatural, just some natural process that we might not fully understand. Kind of the whole "aliens as gods" and "technology as magic" approach. But to be truly supernatural it would have to be able to come into the natural world and violate natural law.

See, even that qualifier is artificial to me. If something violates a natural law, we would just have to say the law doesn't apply to everything in nature, or make a new law to describe how the phenomena behaves, or conclude that not everything in nature is lawlike in its behavior. It would still just be reality, or if you like, nature, and science would be able to say whatever there is to say about it. There's no need to complicate it by introducing categories and putting a fence around certain ones to protect them from being falsified.
 
If the supernatural exists entirely outside of the natural then we can't interact with or observe it in anyway and thus its existence is superfluous. If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural. For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature. If it could be explained (even if it were currently unexplainable) through natural processes then it's not supernatural, just some natural process that we might not fully understand. Kind of the whole "aliens as gods" and "technology as magic" approach. But to be truly supernatural it would have to be able to come into the natural world and violate natural law.

See, even that qualifier is artificial to me. If something violates a natural law, we would just have to say the law doesn't apply to everything in nature, or make a new law to describe how the phenomena behaves, or conclude that not everything in nature is lawlike in its behavior. It would still just be reality, or if you like, nature, and science would be able to say whatever there is to say about it. There's no need to complicate it by introducing categories and putting a fence around certain ones to protect them from being falsified.

It'd have to be something very fundamental. Like a god could make an area in space where gravity falls off as r^-pi instead of r^-2. But I guess you'd have to find a way to be sure that it wasn't some technological trick. But, you're right and that's why I don't believe in the supernatural. It almost by definition doesn't exist.
 
If the supernatural exists entirely outside of the natural then we can't interact with or observe it in anyway and thus its existence is superfluous. If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural. For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature. If it could be explained (even if it were currently unexplainable) through natural processes then it's not supernatural, just some natural process that we might not fully understand. Kind of the whole "aliens as gods" and "technology as magic" approach. But to be truly supernatural it would have to be able to come into the natural world and violate natural law.

See, even that qualifier is artificial to me. If something violates a natural law, we would just have to say the law doesn't apply to everything in nature, or make a new law to describe how the phenomena behaves, or conclude that not everything in nature is lawlike in its behavior. It would still just be reality, or if you like, nature, and science would be able to say whatever there is to say about it. There's no need to complicate it by introducing categories and putting a fence around certain ones to protect them from being falsified.
Then that makes anything supernatural and natural the same thing, natural. So it's a distinction without a difference.
 
Either something that satisfies definition 1 can interact with or leave an observable trace in the universe or it can't. Those are the only two options.
Precisely. I’m asserting the universe itself is that observable trace evidence. The way it works, the way it began, etc.
If it can, it is a legitimate object of scrutiny and, dare I say it, scientific investigation.
Bingo. Science is limited to the study of nature. If nature began then its cause is beyond nature, beyond direct scientific investigation. But we can of course directly study the effect (the universe) and determine some characteristics if the cause…Forensics. Etc. No Bible required.
Actually, this is by no means settled. The observable universe in our 13.8 billion light-year radius had a beginning, but we have no reason to believe this represents "all space, time, matter and energy".
Completely overstated. By far the most plausible outcome from all we know is that the universe began to exist.
There could very easily be a larger manifold in which these things exist, currently beyond our ability to access. The larger reality in which our observable universe may reside could itself have a beginning, or no beginning.
Now who is believing in myths? The observations we have and the BGV theorem infer that even your mythical manifold would need a beginning. No Bible required to counter your mythical alternative. That was science. Remember my larger context….science and theism are compatible.
Thus I’m asserting the nature had a complete beginning, all space, time, matter and energy began to exist. (Supported by logic)Thus a cause it needed. (Supported by logic)
This is not supported by logic. For it to be supported by logic, you need an extra premise: everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Yes I was referring to the law of causality, as indicated my presented approach was much abbreviated. Abbreviated because my main issue here is not this case, but that the real debate here is between worldviews, not science vs Christianity.
However, even if you include this premise the argument fails, because the truth of the premise is itself unupported. For one thing, we have never seen something begin to exist, strictly speaking. Everything we have seen 'begin' actually was just a reconfiguration of existing parts. We have never seen something begin to exist where nothing existed before, so we have no reason to think a cause is necessary in that situation.
Do you realize that you are espousing mereological nihilism? It’s an escape too far. The problem with your philosophy of mereological nihilism is you don’t exist. It’s a well-known bad philosophy from the BEGINNING. Look it up. Just to save you some time….It’s not in the Bible.
Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused.
Are you referring to quantum indeterminism? Because being indeterminate certainly does not imply being uncaused.
I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)
Inferring the cause of the universe to be God, who transcends nature…..definition 1 from above not 2. (Supported by logic)
One last time, I have to stop you. Your last clause there, "God, who transcends nature" is written as if God is already proven to exist and to have the characteristic of transcending nature. No such proof is implicit in your argument or any other, as far as I know. God may or may not exist, and may or may not transcend nature in either case.
This is an issue regarding order of operations. And you have turned that order around on me. It was an easy misinterpretation to make. Please allow me an attempt to clarify.

Specifically what you quoted of my general approach right there was not part of the argument. It was a post conclusion comment to address my meaning of supernatural. So prior to the very last step of the argument the premise is that the “cause” must transcend nature not God. The conclusion is that the description of the cause directly matches the theistic understanding of God. No circular reasoning exists in the argument itself.
Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.
Cute. So if I wrote down a description that more closely matched this God than the Bible does, you would adopt it?
I’ll listen.
What do you have?
I should point out the irony that forensic science is actually the examination of a crime scene, which is about the best that can be said of your argument, I'm afraid.
I really have no problem perceiving it that way. That’s my favorite flavor of investigation. But all I really meant there was to narrow the focus of distinction between operational science and origin science.
The problem is that none of what you presented accords with scientific evidence except for the notion that the universe had a beginning, which is still yet to be conclusively demonstrated.
You are completely under selling the science here. That is like saying other than we have the murderer on video committing the crime, and the gun, bullet ballistics and other actually testimonies of eyewitness also providing motive……you have no case. Because he didn’t confess.

Further note …. That earlier I even defended my science with further science against your mythical alternative of the manifold. Be fair.
The difference between religion and science comes down to epistemologies, as you rightly point out.
Yes thank you. Sort of.

That is the big point here. It is the apex of self-blindness on your part to frame this as a debate between science and Christianity. You just assume that your worldview fits with the science better.

As I stated earlier this is actually a case of which worldview is better supported by the science?
Thus yes…. Our epistemologies must be investigated.
So I will ask you one simple question, and I need you to answer it honestly. Your answer will illustrate whether you are actually a person who follows evidence, or someone who defers to a holy book. Here is my question.
If it were conclusively proven that the universe had no beginning, would you renounce your belief in Christianity?
Your overt false dilemma only presents your misunderstanding of my worldview.

The evidence of a finite universe is but one of many evidences and arguments that provide me with good reason to believe God exists. Even more non-Biblical reasons supported by science.

If this were the only evidence I had and it turned out to be incorrect, than I would doubt my belief.

Think about it….If I were to ask you…..If conclusively, the universe had a complete beginning would you renounce your worldview? Because the science is seriously, pretty “Planck” close too conclusive on that.

Be fair and answer.
 
If the supernatural exists entirely outside of the natural then we can't interact with or observe it in anyway and thus its existence is superfluous.
That is one philosophical perspective on the supernatural. Here is another. We cannot directly observe what is beyond nature. But we can directly study the effect (universe) to determine the characteristics of its cause. Origin science?

Also….Why should we assume just because we can’t directly observe the cause that the cause cannot directly observe us?
If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural.
Percisley. “Interact”…like it is the “cause”? It is unreasonable to reason that the cause of the universe is the universe itself. That is self-creation, which is logically untenable. Thus the cause (interaction) must logically be something beyond our universe/nature. Hence supernatural.
For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature.
Why assume that causes (surpernatural) must operate in the same manner as their effects (nature)?
Henry Ford vs the Model-A.
Na and Cl vs NaCl.
If it could be explained (even if it were currently unexplainable) through natural processes then it's not supernatural, just some natural process that we might not fully understand.
Mechanism vs. agency.
You have two different levels of explanation there. I’m not trying to provide the mechanism of the supernatural cause just the agency. Again consider the relationship of Henry Ford vs. Model-A. Although I do long to know the mechanism.
But to be truly supernatural it would have to be able to come into the natural world and violate natural law.
Yes. But I don’t understand your conflict here.
 
Back
Top Bottom