Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

Full disclosure…I admit I reorganized your last post not in any attempt to distort but to reorganize what I saw as scrambled repeated assertions. If I did distort any of your reasoning by regrouping then I’ll of course address your concerns of my regrouping.

Context there are two different kinds of reasoning. From the beginning I told you I would challenge the reasoning you employ to support your assertions.

……Therefore you have nothing to examine, God (whatever that is) being undetectable……. As the thing we call 'god' (whatever that is) is undetectable, non verifiable, unfalsifiable, the best we can say is we do not know if such a thing as a god exists.

Your conclusion that we cannot know anything of the theistic God is based on faulty reasoning. We cannot base our epistemic duty solely on empiricism, scientism, falsifacationism or verificationism. All of them are self-defeating. Empirically prove empiricism. Scientifically prove scientism. You are making leaps of faith with your reasoning.

Where does history or philosophy register in such systems of reasoning?

….You do not know whether a 'god (whatever that is) is eternal or a part of a family...a succession of gods, just like the turtles that were believed to hold up the earth, that go ''all the way down''......

What is this turtle business?
When you make up stories to distort your opponents position it is called a straw man.
Do you have any evidence that you did not make this up this straw turtle?

……. You do not know whether the Universe or time had a beginning. ……………… Therefore logic must tell you that we do not know how the universe came about, or if it is cyclic or a part of a larger system. Or something else entirely…………

“We do not know” based on what?
I repeatedly provided scientific evidence as to why your FAITH in the cyclic model is unreasonable.
Now it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence as to why you still assert that it is reasonable.
For you said yourself………

You may have trust and/or confidence that what you believe is true, and probably do, but nevertheless you still do not have evidence to support what you trust or have confidence in - what you believe is true - is in fact true.

That is why it's called 'faith' and not 'trust' or 'confidence' even though you have trust and/or confidence that your belief is true.

It is the lack of evidence (or insufficient evidence) that turns trust and confidence into faith.

So………now since my last post…….????
Where is the evidence that your FAITH in the cyclic model is reasonable?

 

[Juma]

You don’t have to have an explanation of the explanation in order for the explanation to be considered reasonable.

If you dont have an explanation for your explanation you need proof of the explanations existence.

And when are you going to present the argument for god being eternal?

 

[DBT]

Where is the evidence that your FAITH in the cyclic model is reasonable?

You keep using the word 'faith' (like its a weapon) to something where there is no conviction of truth.

The cyclic model is but one of several possibilities being put forward, which includes the standard model. One of these may eventually prove true, or none of them if evidence comes along that points to something not yet considered.

This is not faith. It is an exploration possibilities based on what is currently understood about the physical properties of matter/energy, space/time.

As it stands, there is no available information relating to something called 'God' (whatever that is), there is nothing to suggest special creation (an assumption) or that this unknown and apparently non detectable Entity - God - exists (an assumption) and that this God is eternal (an assumption) and is necessary to explain the existence of a Universe that we do not fully understand.

Which makes a belief in the existence of God a matter of faith...and not considering possibilities based on physics and cosmology without forming a conviction that one of these is indeed the true and final explanation.

 

[skepticalbip]

Full disclosure…I admit I reorganized your last post not in any attempt to distort but to reorganize what I saw as scrambled repeated assertions. If I did distort any of your reasoning by regrouping then I’ll of course address your concerns of my regrouping.

Context there are two different kinds of reasoning. From the beginning I told you I would challenge the reasoning you employ to support your assertions.

Your conclusion that we cannot know anything of the theistic God is based on faulty reasoning. We cannot base our epistemic duty solely on empiricism, scientism, falsifacationism or verificationism. All of them are self-defeating. Empirically prove empiricism. Scientifically prove scientism. You are making leaps of faith with your reasoning.

Where does history or philosophy register in such systems of reasoning?

….You do not know whether a 'god (whatever that is) is eternal or a part of a family...a succession of gods, just like the turtles that were believed to hold up the earth, that go ''all the way down''......

What is this turtle business?
When you make up stories to distort your opponents position it is called a straw man.
Do you have any evidence that you did not make this up this straw turtle?

……. You do not know whether the Universe or time had a beginning. ……………… Therefore logic must tell you that we do not know how the universe came about, or if it is cyclic or a part of a larger system. Or something else entirely…………

“We do not know” based on what?
I repeatedly provided scientific evidence as to why your FAITH in the cyclic model is unreasonable.
Now it is incumbent upon you to provide some evidence as to why you still assert that it is reasonable.
For you said yourself………

You may have trust and/or confidence that what you believe is true, and probably do, but nevertheless you still do not have evidence to support what you trust or have confidence in - what you believe is true - is in fact true.

That is why it's called 'faith' and not 'trust' or 'confidence' even though you have trust and/or confidence that your belief is true.

It is the lack of evidence (or insufficient evidence) that turns trust and confidence into faith.

So………now since my last post…….????
Where is the evidence that your FAITH in the cyclic model is reasonable?

It seems that you either have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method or you are intentionally presenting a strawman of what is being said.

Everyone, even the most devout religious, agree the the universe is here. Both science minded and the religious want to understand its nature.

In science, several ideas are offered as to its nature and for each an effort is made to understand how such an idea could possibly match our observations. In the early twentieth century the favored theory was an eternal steady state universe but observations showed that that theory was wrong when it was observed that the current universe is expanding so it has been dropped into the trash along with earlier theories like the geocentric model that had been show by observation to be wrong. There are still several models for the nature of the universe and all are being tested against an ever increasing number of observations. One of the current models may be correct or all may be shown to be wrong and a yet to be constructed model may emerge as a much better understanding of the universe.

Religion has been given a model of the universe that is unquestionably accepted as reality so they consider any observation that contradicts that model as an observational error.

 

[DBT]

It's funny how the word 'faith' is used as a tool by those who seek to promote their own faith based beliefs to dismiss their opponents argument.....''oh, that's just your faith so it means nothing''

I say, oh the irony.

 

[remez]

It's funny how the word 'faith' is used as a tool by those who seek to promote their own faith based beliefs to dismiss their opponents argument.....''oh, that's just your faith so it means nothing''

I say, oh the irony.

And I say oh……Let’s be fair. These were your definitions and reasonings on the matter.

I used SCIENCE to dismiss the reasonableness of your confidence in the cyclic model. Yet even in the face of the scientific evidence against your cyclic model you still trust in it. I simply asked you to provide some evidence for the reasonableness of that belief. Because you said………………

You may have trust and/or confidence that what you believe is true, and probably do, but nevertheless you still do not have evidence to support what you trust or have confidence in - what you believe is true - is in fact true.

That is why it's called 'faith' and not 'trust' or 'confidence' even though you have trust and/or confidence that your belief is true.

It is the lack of evidence (or insufficient evidence) that turns trust and confidence into faith.

Where is the evidence that your FAITH in the cyclic model is reasonable?

The cyclic model is but one of several possibilities being put forward, which includes the standard model. One of these may eventually prove true, or none of them if evidence comes along that points to something not yet considered.

Not all possibilities are reasonable in the face of the evidence we have. That was all I was pointing out. You seem to still have confidence in a cyclic model that science has deemed unreasonable, more than once.

This is not faith. It is an exploration possibilities based on what is currently understood about the physical properties of matter/energy, space/time.

Nice try.

The exploration of possibilities is not what I addressed as your possible faith. I was specifically asking you to provide some evidence as to why you still have trust in the cyclic model given the science I provided against it?

As it stands, there is no available information relating to something called 'God' (whatever that is), there is nothing to suggest special creation (an assumption) or that this unknown and apparently non detectable Entity - God - exists (an assumption) and that this God is eternal (an assumption) and is necessary to explain the existence of a Universe that we do not fully understand.

I addressed this issue in our last post, you ignored it and just repeated yourself…..so here again…..

……Therefore you have nothing to examine, God (whatever that is) being undetectable……. As the thing we call 'god' (whatever that is) is undetectable, non verifiable, unfalsifiable, the best we can say is we do not know if such a thing as a god exists…..

Your conclusion that we cannot know anything of the theistic God is based on faulty reasoning. We cannot base our epistemic duty solely on empiricism, scientism, falsifacationism or verificationism. All of them are self-defeating. Empirically prove empiricism. Scientifically prove scientism. You are making leaps of faith with your reasoning.

Where does history or philosophy register in such systems of reasoning?

Can you please answer the question?
Also……… I would like you to please address the straw turtle issue you raised last post…..here….

….You do not know whether a 'god (whatever that is) is eternal or a part of a family...a succession of gods, just like the turtles that were believed to hold up the earth, that go ''all the way down''......

What is this turtle business?
When you make up stories to distort your opponents position it is called a straw man.
Do you have any evidence that you did not make this up this straw turtle?

 

[remez]

It seems that you either have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method or you are intentionally presenting a strawman of what is being said.

Because I challenged his belief in the Steinhardt-Turok cyclic model I don’t understand science? How so? How did I misrepresent the scientific method?

Everyone, even the most devout religious, agree the the universe is here. Both science minded and the religious want to understand its nature.

Concur.

In science, several ideas are offered as to its nature and for each an effort is made to understand how such an idea could possibly match our observations. In the early twentieth century the favored theory was an eternal steady state universe but observations showed that that theory was wrong when it was observed that the current universe is expanding so it has been dropped into the trash along with earlier theories like the geocentric model that had been show by observation to be wrong.

And you concluded I did not know this ……. How?

There are still several models for the nature of the universe and all are being tested against an ever increasing number of observations.

Yes.

One of the current models may be correct or all may be shown to be wrong and a yet to be constructed model may emerge as a much better understanding of the universe.

We were specifically dealing with the issue of the universe being eternal or part of some materially eternal environment?
The SBBM is the most proven model existing now.
The SBBM supported by the BGV singularity theorem indicates the universe … time, space, matter and energy have a beginning. Thus need a cause.

Religion has been given a model of the universe that is unquestionably accepted as reality……

Ok please tell us what that is. I will pursue you on this assertion so please tell us what it is.

….so they consider any observation that contradicts that model as an observational error.

Observation or hypothesis? Please explain. An example would be nice as well.

 

[DBT]

I addressed this issue in our last post, you ignored it and just repeated yourself…..so here again…..

I know that you believe that you addressed the issue, but you didn't address the issue. You assert your beliefs. To which I keep pointing out that the available evidence does not support your assumptions and beliefs. What you have is faith in an idea: the existence of God and that God is the creator of the Universe.

Being faith based assumptions, the things that you believe are true are not supported by verifiable evidence.

What is this turtle business?
When you make up stories to distort your opponents position it is called a straw man.
Do you have any evidence that you did not make this up this straw turtle?

The 'turtles all the way down' reference relates to infinite regression. Something I thought everybody here is familiar with:

"Turtles all the way down" is a jocular expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the "unmoved mover" paradox. The metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of the theory that Earth is actually flat and is supported on the back of a World Turtle, which itself is propped up by a chain of larger and larger turtles. Questioning what the final turtle might be standing on, the anecdote humorously concludes that it is "turtles all the way down".

The phrase has been commonly known since at least the early 20th century. A comparable metaphor describing the circular cause and consequence for the same problem is the "chicken and egg problem". The same problem in epistemology is known as the Münchhausen trilemma.''- Wiki


Which of course relates to the claim of an eternal god as the agent of creation.

 

[skepticalbip]

One of the current models may be correct or all may be shown to be wrong and a yet to be constructed model may emerge as a much better understanding of the universe.

We were specifically dealing with the issue of the universe being eternal or part of some materially eternal environment?
The SBBM is the most proven model existing now.
The SBBM supported by the BGV singularity theorem indicates the universe … time, space, matter and energy have a beginning. Thus need a cause.

You are talking about philosophy, not science. Science currently has no way to study such things and may never have the ability to. There are those who use scientific thought as the basis for their philosophy and then there those who use religion as a basis. It is your religious model that is telling you that the universe had a beginning and must have a cause (which, of course, you have been told is god).

Religion has been given a model of the universe that is unquestionably accepted as reality……

Ok please tell us what that is. I will pursue you on this assertion so please tell us what it is.

It should be obvious to you since you are using one of many religious models as the basis of your belief - "god poofed it all into existence". I have no idea what flavor of religion you hold to and there are several permutations. The young Earth creationists believe god poofed everything into existence exactly as it is now only six thousand or so years ago. Catholics believe god poofed everything into existence something like 13.7 billion years ago. Between these two extremes there are several variations - none of them based on anything but the religious story given to them. Hindus, of course, have a very different story.

….so they consider any observation that contradicts that model as an observational error.

Observation or hypothesis? Please explain. An example would be nice as well.

Observation. Which flavor of religion would you like an example from? There are too fucking many different sects and beliefs of religion for me to choose from. If you don't happen to be a Christian young Earth creationist then you are well aware of many examples from that particular group.

ETA:
A question. How could you show that your religion's understanding of the universe is true and the Hindu or any of the other religion's understanding is false.

 

[remez]

I addressed this issue in our last post, you ignored it and just repeated yourself…..so here again…..

I know that you believe that you addressed the issue, but you didn't address the issue…… To which I keep pointing out that the available evidence does not support your assumptions and beliefs. What you have is faith in an idea: the existence of God and that God is the creator of the Universe.

Being faith based assumptions, the things that you believe are true are not supported by verifiable evidence.

My point still remains…….

……Therefore you have nothing to examine, God (whatever that is) being undetectable……. As the thing we call 'god' (whatever that is) is undetectable, non verifiable, unfalsifiable, the best we can say is we do not know if such a thing as a god exists…..

Your conclusion that we cannot know anything of the theistic God is based on faulty reasoning. We cannot base our epistemic duty solely on empiricism, scientism, falsifacationism or verificationism. All of them are self-defeating. Empirically prove empiricism. Scientifically prove scientism. You are making leaps of faith with your reasoning.

Where does history or philosophy register in such systems of reasoning?

I’m challenging your epistemology…….Your standard of evidence and reasoning from that evidence.

You seem to reject historical evidence. Hence my continued query on that point.

Yet you seem to have no issue supplying historical evidence to support your assertions…set up here……….

The 'turtles all the way down' reference relates to infinite regression. Something I thought everybody here is familiar with:

"Turtles all the way down" is a jocular expression of the infinite regress problem in cosmology posed by the "unmoved mover" paradox. The metaphor in the anecdote represents a popular notion of the theory that Earth is actually flat and is supported on the back of a World Turtle, which itself is propped up by a chain of larger and larger turtles. Questioning what the final turtle might be standing on, the anecdote humorously concludes that it is "turtles all the way down".

The phrase has been commonly known since at least the early 20th century. A comparable metaphor describing the circular cause and consequence for the same problem is the "chicken and egg problem". The same problem in epistemology is known as the Münchhausen trilemma.''- Wiki

You even appeal to them as well known. Historically or scientifically? That was my real point in asking for this well-known (in philosophical circles) jocular appeal to and infinite regress.

But note it is not scientific evidence that you have supplied as evidence.

So how can you offer this piece of history if it is not empirical or scientific?

Is it just something someone told you about or did you read about it somewhere?

So should I dismiss it the way you do, by labeling it an assumption?

Examine….I challenging your epistemology here not the jocular turtles reasoning.

Why is your epistemology correct and mine not?

Which of course relates to the claim of an eternal god as the agent of creation.

Related?
How so?

One is a debate about the structure of the earth. The other is about a finite universe. I could just as easily assert that your cyclic faith better represents the jocular turtles than my finite universe. Why would I be wrong? Think about it, for the reason you provide to that question would also dismiss the related parallelism you were attempting here.

Also……..

Was this jocular reasoning historically representing a position of the theistic God we’re discussing? Because, the historical arguments on the table do and have been for thousands of years.

 

[remez]

First ….. you did not address…..

It seems that you either have absolutely no understanding of the scientific method or you are intentionally presenting a strawman of what is being said.

Because I challenged his belief in the Steinhardt-Turok cyclic model I don’t understand science? How so? How did I misrepresent the scientific method?

Support your assertion please.
Next……………..

You are talking about philosophy, not science.

Clearly, I was talking about both.

Science currently has no way to study such things and may never have the ability to.

So does that mean all reasoning stops at the limits of science?

There are those who use scientific thought as the basis for their philosophy and then there those who use religion as a basis.

Is there anything wrong with rationally using all three?

It is your religious model that is telling you that the universe had a beginning and must have a cause (which, of course, you have been told is god).

Then you are ignoring the science and philosophy I offered (which, of course you ignore, you have been told that theists reject science).

It should be obvious to you since you are using one of many religious models as the basis of your belief - "god poofed it all into existence".

Which God? Because you (atheistic ???) brought it up ……. Describe the differences between the theologies and science of Biblical theism and the Hinduism. Specifically which form of Hinduism are you interested in? Your understanding is important to this………….because…….

ETA:
A question. How could you show that your religion's understanding of the universe is true and the Hindu or any of the other religion's understanding is false.

Rationally you would use science, history, philosophy and theology. Just like anything else.

Do you have another way?

 

[abaddon]

This is the rationale for the argument. If something exists now then something has to be eternal.

No, it doesn’t necessarily. An eternal entity (if that's a something with no beginning) isn’t possible to rationally demonstrate as necessarily true.

Rationally something necessarily has to exist eternally without cause.

And it’s either “turtles all the way down” - an infinite regress, an eternal link of chains with each link sufficiently explained by the one before. Or the eternal “something” is the universe which in spite of beginning is the whole of time.

Your idea that cyclic universes are dismissed by science is false. The critique of the particular model DBT had given as an example is it's maybe a bit more speculative than the other extremely speculative guesses floating around because it refers to string theory which itself isn't demonstrated yet.

That which is eternal does not begin.

Why? Isn’t eternity the whole of time? If time began about 13.7 billion years ago then is that eternity? And if not, then when is eternity?

That which is eternal rationally has no cause.

If there's anything that goes infinitely into a beginning-less past.

For most of human history the universe has been reasoned to be eternal and reasoned to not have a cause because it did not begin.

Are you sure? How many people in most of history were creationists?

Science recently has shown that not to be the case.

Science has shown that this universe is not static but is expanding. So God didn't place the stars in the firmament where they remain immovably fixed and thus somehow heavenly "perfect". Historically this was rather a blow to theism.

Now do you understand the logic of ……………..

1. that something has to be eternal
2. a entity that is eternal it does not have a cause
3. the universe is not eternal ……………

………..without the burden of the “God Hypothesis?”

Yes. Theism actually does not follow from the argument to contingency.

To clarify …

1. These two arguments point to a theistic God, not necessarily the Christian God.

2. What remains (as I see it) in the pool of God’s that has not been filtered out by these two arguments is…..

The Christian God, the Islamic God and the God of Judaism. One could make a case for the deistic God as well, but then one would first have to admit there is a God, and then examine the scriptural evidence to why that is or is not the case.

I will of course entertain any other candidates you may wish to contend.

A variety of theism is assumed because after arguing for an eternal something, the intent is that the eternal something must be a decision-making intelligence (and thus seem purposeful and meaningful) and not a variety of dumb force. But if there were only two options, Nothing versus Something, and if they were both equally likely, then one of them HAD to happen. Why should "Nothing" seem the more probable non-occurrence, and "Something" seem more surprising? Maybe absolute “Nothingness” (is it even a meaningful concept?) was never an option.

 

[skepticalbip]

It should be obvious to you since you are using one of many religious models as the basis of your belief - "god poofed it all into existence".

Which God? Because you (atheistic ???) brought it up ……. Describe the differences between the theologies and science of Biblical theism and the Hinduism. Specifically which form of Hinduism are you interested in? Your understanding is important to this………….because…….

Now that is humorous. You are asking me which god? You are the one that asserted as absolute truth that the universe had a beginning and god was the cause. So you tell me which god you are talking about. Describe him/her/it for me so I know what the hell you are talking about. It obviously isn't any of the Hindu gods because they don't match your assertions. Can you support your particular idea of god and his/her/its deeds are true and all those other gods of different religions that don't have the same nature and asserted accomplishments is false?

ETA:
A question. How could you show that your religion's understanding of the universe is true and the Hindu or any of the other religion's understanding is false.

Rationally you would use science, history, philosophy and theology. Just like anything else.

Do you have another way?

You didn't answer the question. I assume that you believe that your concept of whatever you think of your god is true. If that god isn't Vishnu then your concept is very different from a Hindu's concept of Vishnu so by your belief they must be wrong about the super sky daddy and only your understanding is true. The question was what exactly would you say to Hindus to prove to them that they were wrong and to convince them to "see the light" as you see it?

 

[Juma]

Remez. Why ignoring my request?

 

[DBT]

You even appeal to them as well known. Historically or scientifically? That was my real point in asking for this well-known (in philosophical circles) jocular appeal to and infinite regress.

The phrase has been used from time to time, both on this forum and it's predecessors. As you appear to have been a member here for a number of years, it's a fair assumption that you have come across it occasionally.

But note it is not scientific evidence that you have supplied as evidence.

So how can you offer this piece of history if it is not empirical or scientific?

The phrase simply represents the problem of infinite regress. Your claim being that god is eternal, even though you have no way of knowing this. Nor is it known whether the universe had an actual beginning or just the beginning of another stage or cycle...or if the standard model is true and there was no before the universe - therefore no infinite regression and therefore no 'turtles all the way down''

The way you dodge 'turtles all the way down' (infinite regression) is to claim 'god is eternal' - but you don't know that, nor is there anything to suggest that to be true.

Meanwhile your claim in relation to the beginning of the universe necessitating a creator is broken when applied to creator, brushed aside with the proclamation; god is eternal.

But if the claim - complexity (universe and creators) is fairly applied fairly, the beginning of universe requires a creator, and by the same rules of logic the creator also requires a creator.....which is 'turtles all the way down''

But the little song and dance routine 'the creator doesn't require a creator' sidesteps the very rule used for the universe and avoids the issue of infinite regression, turtles all the way down.

Examine….I challenging your epistemology here not the jocular turtles reasoning.

Perhaps you need to examine the assumption of the existence of god when there is no evidence to support that assumption. Examine the assumption of 'god is eternal' when you have no information in that regard.

Why is your epistemology correct and mine not?

I am pointing out what is not known. You are adding assumptions, god, eternal, beginning to the universe/time, etc, that implies a source of information that is just not available.

 

[remez]

Examine….I challenging your epistemology here not the jocular turtles reasoning.

Perhaps you need to examine the assumption of the existence of god when there is no evidence to support that assumption. Examine the assumption of 'god is eternal' when you have no information in that regard.

This has been a longish thread and I think we have lost some context here......

I’m not assuming the theistic God exists. I’m providing and supporting two arguments (LCA & KCA) in an attempt to demonstrate we have good reasons to believe that he exists. In short context, I was challenged back at the beginning of this thread to distinguish between two avenues of reasoning. I’m a Christian theist, thus assumed by atheists, not to have reasons for my belief only faith. Which you rigorously defined faith as belief without reason. Since then I have been trying to counter the assumption that we don’t have good reasons for our faith; by providing the reasons I have for my theistic beliefs.

As for the definition that the theistic God is eternal, that is theological in support. That would require a different discussion involving theology, philosophy and history. But your limited epistemology doesn’t allow that. Thus I was investigating the limits of your epistemology. Where does history fit in? Would you even accept the theist understanding that God is eternal by definition?

Why challenge me to prove I have good reasons for the existence of the theistic God and then deny that the theistic God (should he exist) is by definition eternal? After all I’m not trying to prove Apollo exists.

Let me ask ALL YOU FOLKS this. And it needs answer. For thousands of years the universe, without a doubt, was believed to be eternal. What were their reasons to believe so? How does your epistemology address that real fact of history and deny that the theistic God (should he exist) is eternal?

Also the case for Christianity is a cumulative case. All I have presented was a very small piece of that case. A piece that I did not provide to convince you that the case for Christianity is true but to demonstrate that we have good reasons to believe God exists. If you would like to continue further with more evidence then I willing to go there. For you keep mentioning this complexity thing and that sounds like the fine tuning argument which I have not presented.

That reply was too quick for I’m presently too pressed for time. Hope I wasn’t too unclear.

A courtesy note to you all….. thanks for the challenge…….but I will be detained from posting for the next 7-10 days due to time restraints. I hope to return to these discussions shortly.

ttfn

 

[DBT]

But your limited epistemology doesn’t allow that.

Given that several posters, including myself have pointed out the errors in your reasoning (it being understandable that you'd never be willing to accept), I find this kind of remark arrogant.

But to be fair, you probably know that you have no case to make and use remarks like that as a means of rationalizing your position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Let me ask ALL YOU FOLKS this. And it needs answer. For thousands of years the universe, without a doubt, was believed to be eternal. What were their reasons to believe so? How does your epistemology address that real fact of history and deny that the theistic God (should he exist) is eternal?

For thousands of years, people thought the Sun was pushed across the sky by a scarab. Or dragged by horses. Or any number of other firmly held beliefs.
I'm pretty sure when NASA plans a satellite launch aimed at putting a satellite in solar orbit, they don't take the scarab beetle into account. Why not? How can they not address the scarab?!

 

[fromderinside]

What is gravity?

 

[DBT]

What is gravity?

Gravity is the God of macro scale physics, the Great Shaper and Former of Galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and their motions.