Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[Malintent]

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.

Or, more specifically, gravity is defined as the extent to which something is of importance.

 

[remez]

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.

Well rationally it cannot be an infinite regress. So something has to be eternal to be the first cause of all that exists now. That eternal something itself is without cause logically because it is eternal.

So isn’t it just blind faith on your part to conclude that the universe is that eternal something in spite of the scientific evidence otherwise.

Also………….

Or the eternal “something” is the universe which in spite of beginning is the whole of time.

Belief in spite of the evidence?
Where have I heard that charge before?

More importantly …….. Are you reasoning that something can begin to exist without a cause?

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.

Here is the issue. Any model that on average has an expansion rate greater than zero cannot be past eternal. The cyclic models by their design are expanding. The multiverse models run into the same problem of expansion. Thus by their very nature these models cannot produce the eternal materiality you seek. The SBBM stands near certainty. The universe must have a cause.

That which is eternal does not begin.

Why?

Logic.

That which is eternal does not begin.

….. Isn’t eternity the whole of time?

No. Time began to exist with the material universe.

That which is eternal does not begin.

…… If time began about 13.7 billion years ago then is that eternity? …

No.

That which is eternal does not begin.

… And if not, then when is eternity?

Beyond our temporal spatial universe.

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.

What do you mean by that?

Specifically you seem to be inferring a theistic doctrine or interpretation I’m unfamiliar with.

Thus possibly you presented a straw man.

A variety of theism is assumed because after arguing for an eternal something, ……

How is it assumed after arguing?

Theism is reasoned….. not assumed.

You indicated so yourself……. “After arguing” infers reason not assumption.

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…..

The intent……to be clear…… is a rational inference not assumption.

So yes …… theists reason that an eternal immaterial personal agent is more rational than a non-eternal material entity materially creating itself.

….But if there were only two options, Nothing versus Something, and if they were both equally likely, ….

Equally likely????? That is the fulcrum of debate here.

…. 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.

I think the confusion exists with the discussion in between the two arguments (LCA and KCA) and the concept of “nothing” in each.

I’m not saying that nothing is more probable than something. Rather the LCA is reasonably inferring that your “absolute nothingness” actually could not exist. However it is possible for nothing material to exist.

However, in the KCA the universe began from nothing material, thus did not have a material cause. Therefore the efficient cause is an immaterial, eternal, powerful, personal agent. Which is not “absolute nothing,” but is nothing material.

 

[remez]

You are the one that asserted as absolute truth that the universe had a beginning and god was the cause.

Overstated.
I’m defending two arguments that provide good reason that the theistic God exists.
I have also stated that I would have to rethink my theism should the universe be eternal.

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?

Yes I did. But you have yet to answer mine. Regarding your assertion that I misunderstood the scientific method or created a straw man. Consider this my third request on that matter. (top of post 231.)
Now back to your question……
This is humorous ……………….

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.

I have no idea what flavor of Hinduism you are holding to.

I would have to query to which form of Hinduism we were discussing. Some forms are somewhat theistic and others are not. Hinduism is wide open to a wide variety of beliefs.

Therefore I would have to address the science, history, philosophy and theology matching the form of Hinduism on the table. In the same manner I have been discussing it here. I couldn’t possibly articulate the exact conversion. If I attempted to articulate and exact conversation then someone would chastise me and rightfully so for creating a straw man of their beliefs.

Your request for an exact articulation is unreasonable. It totally depends on the kind of science, history, philosophy and theology of the person I was addressing.

Is Vishnu (should he exist) eternal?

Finally.

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…..

Why and how did science hold this belief?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

 

[remez]

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.

Here is the full section you quoted for further context…….

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.

So…………….
Your subjective assessment needs to be defended.

The “error” of reasoning that you (Juma and others) assert here is specifically the definition of the theistic God. Now that is not an error in reasoning. That is a desperate attempt on your part to avoid the reasons and refutations I have provided thus far.

The reasoning of your challenge (the theistic God is eternal) contradicts your own reasoning for an eternal universe. That was my point in asking the question.

You and a couple of others are now demanding me to provide evidence that the theistic God is defined as eternal. My role in this thread was and remains, to provide reasons for the existence of the theistic God. That is what I was challenged to do and have done so to this point. Along the way I have reasonably refuted many attempts on your part to reason otherwise. Particularly that the universe is eternal (cyclic) or part of some materially eternal environment. After having properly played my role in this debate, you now move the goal posts and demand I prove that the theistic God is defined as eternal. Really?

Your limited epistemology (naturalistic materialism) has already eliminated any prospect that I can do so. Again that is not an error in reasoning on my part. That is a difference of epistemologies that needs to be addressed and defended. Which I have been challenging you to do for the past several posts. For further context to include your others…………

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…..

Why and how did science hold this belief?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

So along those lines, I have the suspicion that your epistemology is an improper double standard. For it seems that you can accept nothing as eternal, not even your scifi models offered against the SBBM. So to explore this possible double standard I challenged you and the others right back to address some basic history. For thousands of years the universe was thought to be eternal, how was that determined? Why did the static model assert an eternal universe? Was it assumed? Was there scientific evidence that it was eternal and that evidence was then found to be incorrectly interpreted? Why, why why, for thousands of years was the universe considered eternal? It is the same challenge you have challenged me with.

It is a serious question. Your (or others) answer would provide either a way for me to bridge to your epistemology (what you would except as evidence) or expose your request as an irrational double standard. An inconsistency in your reasoning.

I contend you can’t provide an answer that would reasonably disavow my position as well. So it is not an error in reasoning on my part until you can defend the reasonableness and consistency of your challenge to begin with. For you have held the very same position on your part with your eternal entity. The error in the reasoning here is your challenge itself conflicts with your epistemology. And you guys are voicing just that challenge. Defend your irrational double standard. Address your contradiction. Until such time you can defend your challenge, your present assertions that my reasoning is in error, are themselves in error.

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.

No. You are simply blind to the fact that your very challenge disavows your own position as well. AKA a contradiction.

Thus until you defend the reasonableness of your challenge (shifting of the goal posts) while staying consistent with the reasoning you have provided, it is your reasoning that is in error.

Your challenge is inconsistent with your reasoning thus far.

It really is this simple …… reasonably answer my question regarding the history of an eternal static universe in a fashion that holds consistent to your own reasoning. Again I contend that you cannot, while at the same time demonstrating that my position is wrong. For I’m certain that anything reasonable that you should offer will provide me the same avenue as well. Good Luck.

 

[remez]

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?!

You seem to have misjudged the context of the discussion.

More specifically …..

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…..

Why and how did science hold this belief?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

 

[skepticalbip]

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…..

Why and how did science hold this belief?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

Your questions are a good example illustrating that you don't understand the scientific method. Science didn't "hold this belief" of a steady state universe. It was one of several theories (though the most popular). It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations. However more observations were continually made to continually test the theory and, as soon as an observation was made that contradicted the model, it was dropped for a theory that better explained all the old and new observations. The same method is used for all theories. The theory of relativity is being continually tested and if it fails a test and a better theory is offered that better explains observations then relativity will be dropped for the better theory - just as relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.

Science doesn't even attempt to offer "truths" as you seem to believe ("truths" are the bailiwick of philosophers and Popes). Science offers mathematical models that allow for the prediction of future observations. When those future observations don't match predictions then the model is in need of refinement or replacement with a better model. It is the dream of any scientist to disprove an existing theory and offer a better theory to replace it so they work damned hard to find and prove (through new observations, not hand waving) flaws in existing theories.

 

[Juma]

However, in the KCA the universe began from nothing material, thus did not have a material cause. Therefore the efficient cause is an immaterial, eternal, powerful, personal agent. Which is not “absolute nothing,” but is nothing material.

Therefore? Even assuming that KCA is valid (which it isnt) there is no implication of an eternal, personal agent.

The only reason you state that is that you want your personal imaginary friend to fit that description...

By the way: you havent shown that god is eternal.

 

[remez]

Your questions are a good example illustrating that you don't understand the scientific method.

And you base this on…………….

Science didn't "hold this belief" of a steady state universe.

Which truly I meant to be no different than……… context of your “favored” here……

In the early twentieth century the favored theory was an eternal steady state universe

So.... you are asserting that "favor" and "belief" in this context are not synonymous.

and based on that subjective assertion..........

I don’t know the scientific method.

Is that all you have?

It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations.

Concur.
However, more specifically what was he evidence that pointed to eternity.
That you failed to address.

However more observations were continually made to continually test the theory and, as soon as an observation was made that contradicted the model, it was dropped for a theory that better explained all the old and new observations.

“AS soon as” really there was no debate about which was the better model? The SST was dropped instantly? I know you did not really mean that so here is what I’m getting at with this query.

History records the lengthy debate over the release of the SST in “favor” of BBM’s.

I don’t think you would deny that fact.

But if I’m debating the evidence for the SBBM over the other scifi models presented, why is my debate subjectively dismissed as hand waving?

Why if I’m presenting the mathematics of the BGV to support my “favor,” do you subjectively declare I don’t understand the scientific method?

So…………….

It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations. However more observations were continually made to continually test the theory and, as soon as an observation was made that contradicted the model, it was dropped for a theory that better explained all the old and new observations. The same method is used for all theories. The theory of relativity is being continually tested and if it fails a test and a better theory is offered that better explains observations then relativity will be dropped for the better theory - just as relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.

I completely understand and agree.

But………………..

Science doesn't even attempt to offer "truths" as you seem to believe ("truths" are the bailiwick of philosophers and Popes).

You are trying to make some kind of philosophic statement here that you mean to be true, but it is unclear just what that statement is.
Please clarify.
Also please explain your apparent hypocrisy.

Science offers mathematical models that allow for the prediction of future observations. When those future observations don't match predictions then the model is in need of refinement or replacement with a better model.

Again I understand and agree.

But again, just to make sure, the "rejection", refinement or replacement is debated on your part and just hand waving on mine. Correct?

It is the dream of any scientist to disprove an existing theory and offer a better theory to replace it so they work damned hard to find and prove (through new observations, not hand waving) flaws in existing theories.

Not so sure I completely agree here. And this may only be a matter of semantics. But I assert that scientists aren’t always trying to disprove existing theory but in many instances scientists are trying to support or improve an existing theory.

Finally………..focus on eternal………

Why and how did science FAVOR that the universe was eternal?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

 

[remez]

Therefore? Even assuming that KCA is valid (which it isnt)

You have not shown that either premise is false, or is less plausible than an alternative, or that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

Thus your denial is without reason.

But…… to continue for the sake of argument………

Therefore? Even assuming that KCA is valid….. there is no implication of an eternal, personal agent.

I have asserted numerous times that the implication from the conclusion (the universe needs a cause) to that cause is the theistic God is one of forensics, philosophy and theology.

I have never hid from that assertion.

I have never asserted, as you suggest, that because the universe needs a cause that it is the theistic God without reason.

I have reasoned from the universe needing a cause to a theistic God numerous times.

By the way: you havent shown that god is eternal.

BTW you have not addressed why history bears witness that prior to the 1920’s many scientists believed (“favored”) that the universe is eternal. I have been addressing this with DBT. For further detail check out “moving goal” post 244.

 

[Juma]

You have not shown that either premise is false, or is less plausible than an alternative, or that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

Thus your denial is without reason.

But…… to continue for the sake of argument………

Therefore? Even assuming that KCA is valid….. there is no implication of an eternal, personal agent.

I have asserted numerous times that the implication from the conclusion (the universe needs a cause) to that cause is the theistic God is one of forensics, philosophy and theology.

I have never hid from that assertion.

I have never asserted, as you suggest, that because the universe needs a cause that it is the theistic God without reason.

I have reasoned from the universe needing a cause to a theistic God numerous times.

You have asserted multiple times, but never presented a complete argument.

 

[skepticalbip]

And you base this on…………….

Science didn't "hold this belief" of a steady state universe.

Which truly I meant to be no different than……… context of your “favored” here……

You just need to use a dictionary if you don't know the difference in favoring something and believing in something.

In the early twentieth century the favored theory was an eternal steady state universe

So.... you are asserting that "favor" and "belief" in this context are not synonymous.

and based on that subjective assertion..........

Again, use your dictionary.

It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations.

Concur.
However, more specifically what was he evidence that pointed to eternity.
That you failed to address.

The "eternity" was philosophical not scientific... yes sometimes some scientists philosophize as I explained earlier but they base their philosophies on what is observed. i.e. at the time the steady state was the most favored, the position of stars were defined by their coordinates. Astronomers could reliably point their telescopes to those coordinates and always find the star there. They were there last year and were predicted to be there next year. Philosophizing from this since the stars were that last year they were there two years ago, and two years before that, and two years before that... etc. There is no Unobserved magic needed to be added to the observed data.

However more observations were continually made to continually test the theory and, as soon as an observation was made that contradicted the model, it was dropped for a theory that better explained all the old and new observations.

“AS soon as” really there was no debate about which was the better model? The SST was dropped instantly? I know you did not really mean that so here is what I’m getting at with this query.

History records the lengthy debate over the release of the SST in “favor” of BBM’s.

I don’t think you would deny that fact.

WTF? Are you just playing nit-picking word games? Science rejected the steady state and accepted the expanding universe when there was confirming observations. Some scientists didn't accept it on philosophical grounds but that was philosophical not scientific because it required ignoring the observations.

But if I’m debating the evidence for the SBBM over the other scifi models presented, why is my debate subjectively dismissed as hand waving?

Present your supporting observational data and you will be talking science. Otherwise you are talking hand waving philosophy. Philosophers always argue with other philosophers with their own hand waving.

It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations. However more observations were continually made to continually test the theory and, as soon as an observation was made that contradicted the model, it was dropped for a theory that better explained all the old and new observations. The same method is used for all theories. The theory of relativity is being continually tested and if it fails a test and a better theory is offered that better explains observations then relativity will be dropped for the better theory - just as relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.

I completely understand and agree.

But………………..

Science doesn't even attempt to offer "truths" as you seem to believe ("truths" are the bailiwick of philosophers and Popes).

You are trying to make some kind of philosophic statement here that you mean to be true, but it is unclear just what that statement is.
Please clarify.

Your confusion seems to be that you don't know what science is. Scientific theories are not statements of "truth". They are conditional mathematical models that describe observations. "Goddidit" is an unconditional (and unsupported with data) statement of "truth" from religion.

Also please explain your apparent hypocrisy.

Science offers mathematical models that allow for the prediction of future observations. When those future observations don't match predictions then the model is in need of refinement or replacement with a better model.

Again I understand and agree.

But again, just to make sure, the "rejection", refinement or replacement is debated on your part and just hand waving on mine. Correct?

Sorry I can't get in you head to understand WTF you even meant by this.

But I'll try. Scientific theories are rejected because they fail to explicitly mathematically explain observations or fail to predict future observations. If you can offer indisputable observational evidence of your god then you are talking science however if you only philosophize that there must be a god because "we don't know... yet" (god of the gaps spackle) then you have nothing but faith and belief.

It is the dream of any scientist to disprove an existing theory and offer a better theory to replace it so they work damned hard to find and prove (through new observations, not hand waving) flaws in existing theories.

Not so sure I completely agree here. And this may only be a matter of semantics. But I assert that scientists aren’t always trying to disprove existing theory but in many instances scientists are trying to support or improve an existing theory.

They are testing the theory. If the test confirms the theory then that is nice but the scientist doing the test gets little out of that. However, if the scientist conducting the test finds an error in the theory then that scientist is suddenly a celebrity, especially if he can offer a new theory that replaces the old one, then his name will be remembered for generations.

Finally………..focus on eternal………

Why and how did science FAVOR that the universe was eternal?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

That is covered earlier in this post. You really need to understand the difference between philosophy and science. And yes, scientists sometimes philosophize but when they do they are doing philosophy, not science.

 

[DBT]

No. You are simply blind to the fact that your very challenge disavows your own position as well. AKA a contradiction.

Thus until you defend the reasonableness of your challenge (shifting of the goal posts) while staying consistent with the reasoning you have provided, it is your reasoning that is in error.

Your challenge is inconsistent with your reasoning thus far.

You keep making these remarks as if you actually provided a valid argument for your position.

No such thing has happened. Your posts consist entirely of this kind of assertion.

You misrepresent both science and the nature and significance of faith, wilfully ignoring that in science, working models based on observations do not require supernatural elements to make the model valid, or to give it better explanatory ability.

A necessity for God (whatever that is) is your own claim. A claim that you have not justified, only asserted.

Assertion alone does not justify a claim.

Now, other posters including myself have provided current models that are built on faith or require a supernatural entity, which you simply reject or brush aside, only to assert your beliefs again and again.

It really is this simple …… reasonably answer my question regarding the history of an eternal static universe in a fashion that holds consistent to your own reasoning. Again I contend that you cannot, while at the same time demonstrating that my position is wrong. For I’m certain that anything reasonable that you should offer will provide me the same avenue as well. Good Luck.

Yawn....another strawman....I don't think that anybody, certainly not me, has even mentioned an ''eternal static universe.''

 

[DBT]

Typo error correction, of course I meant to say;

''Now, other posters including myself have provided current models that are not built on faith or require a supernatural entity...''

 

[remez]

You have not shown that either premise is false, or is less plausible than an alternative, or that the conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.

Thus your denial is without reason.

But…… to continue for the sake of argument………

I have asserted numerous times that the implication from the conclusion (the universe needs a cause) to that cause is the theistic God is one of forensics, philosophy and theology.

I have never hid from that assertion.

I have never asserted, as you suggest, that because the universe needs a cause that it is the theistic God without reason.

I have reasoned from the universe needing a cause to a theistic God numerous times.

You have asserted multiple times, but never presented a complete argument.

Seriously? ….178.
Note It was once again addressed here and I mentioned how you had been ignoring it.

Moving on…………

1) the current universe started some finite time ago

Theistic position supported by science …… 1) the universe had an absolute beginning.

2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

Now I asked you earlier to list the characteristics that the cause of the universe would have to possess. Just like examining a crime scene. Look at the universe with an absolute beginning and forensically list the characteristics of its cause.

That something had to be eternal, immaterial, beyond nature, timeless sans causation, powerful and an intelligent personal agent.

Now that list of characteristics is not arbitrary. The list of characteristics is compiled from a forensic investigation of what characteristics the cause of the universe with an absolute beginning would possess.

That list just happens to identify the main suspect as the theistic God.

While at the same time eliminating all of your unreasonable “natural suspects” and the non-theistic gods as well.

Now let’s go through your lineup.

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe

See e).

b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)

Fails the BGV theorem. Doesn’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. Insufficient mass to reverse expansion. Entropy issues cannot be resolved sufficient enough to render these models reasonable. Gets pretty ad hoc attempting to hurdle all of the defects.

c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.

You fail to see that there was no space, time, mass, or energy for this fiction. Perhaps if you could provide some common revelation I could study this further. In other words I willing to entertain your scenario as long as you can provide a common history of revelation.

d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.

Fails quantum, mechanically. Its probability of collapse is non-zero thus it couldn’t have existed eternally.

e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.

Multiverse scenarios….. Again are crushed by the BGV theorem. Meaning they still have a finite past thus do not eliminate the need for a cause. Provide one that does get around the BGV theorem and then we might have something reasonable to discuss.

Your alternative of "an intelligent mind creating the universe from nothing" is just one of infinite possible alternatives.

Only if you ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. And since that is what you are arbitrarily doing your attempted refutations are unreasonable.

Your talk about "necessary" is just bullshit. We cannot know wether there is anything that is "necessary".

“MY talk?” You really don’t understand the argument you are trying to defeat. Logic demands that since something exists then something has to be necessary. I didn’t make this up. This has been debated for thousands of years. Look it up.

And even if there are, we cannit know wether something specific is "necessary" or not.

Try forensic science and reasoning and give your arbitrary fictions a rest.

One more quick find from many others…………..

Indeed, there are an infinity of such possibilities,

Indeed. So how does the theist move from the universe needing a cause to that cause is the theistic God? Is it an arbitrary “love me-love me not” flower pedal plucking approach? Is it a blind faith approach? Is it a matter of subjective opinion? What if I told you that the approach the theist employs here is a rational combination of science, metaphysics, philosophy and theology?
Simple process actually. Forensically compile a list of characteristics that the cause of the universe would need to possess, if indeed it had an absolute beginning.
This is a forensic (scientific) exercise mind you.….

Here is yet another exchange as evidence…………..

On the other hand, we have no indication of the existence of a creator. So, as a model, a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe has no evidential basis or support.

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist. Thus its cause had to be beyond nature. The characteristics of that cause match the characteristics of God. It is a direct inferential trial.

Again you seem to be espousing the self-refuting epistemology that all reason stops at the limits of science. More specifically you seem to be saying since science cannot study God then God cannot exist. My evidence …. You claim that God as a scientific model (un-pendantic) is not a scientific /natural explanation. I know he’s not. I’m not asserting the cause must be natural. That would be begging the question like you.

Science can’t examine that which is beyond the cause of nature, BUT Reason can. We have good grounds to believe God exists based upon a combination of scientific, metaphysical, philosophical and theological reasoning from the same evidence we are both looking at. My scope of reasoning just isn’t as narrow minded as yours.

 

[remez]

This was my concern.
You entered the conversation at a point where I was debating the strengths and weaknesses of the cyclic model in comparison to the SBBM. I was providing science to support my rejection of the cyclic model DBT was presenting. You then entered with this………………

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?

Since then you have rightfully pointed out that scientists debate over the science presumably using science. That is precisely what I was doing.

Since then, part of what I have been trying to understand is why you would dismiss my approach as you did……………..

But if I’m debating the evidence for the SBBM over the other scifi models presented, why is my debate subjectively dismissed as hand waving?

Present your supporting observational data and you will be talking science. Otherwise you are talking hand waving philosophy. Philosophers always argue with other philosophers with their own hand waving.

Here is just one quick reference…………

On the other hand, we have no indication of the existence of a creator. So, as a model, a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe has no evidential basis or support.

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist. Thus its cause had to be beyond nature. The characteristics of that cause match the characteristics of God. It is a direct inferential trial.
Again you seem to be espousing the self-refuting epistemology that all reason stops at the limits of science. More specifically you seem to be saying since science cannot study God then God cannot exist. My evidence …. You claim that God as a scientific model (un-pendantic) is not a scientific /natural explanation. I know he’s not. I’m not asserting the cause must be natural. That would be begging the question like you. Science can’t examine the supernatural cause, BUT Reason can. We have good grounds to believe God exists based upon a combination of scientific, metaphysical, philosophical and theological reasoning from the same evidence we are both looking at. My scope of reasoning just isn’t as narrow minded as yours.

….and there were many others. Check out my last reply to Juma.

So………….How specifically is that “hand waving?”
And…………
You have pointed out that philosophy does have a role to play in our understanding of reality. So if the philosophy is rational then why would it simply be dismissed as “hand waving” simply because it is philosophy?

Science doesn't even attempt to offer "truths" as you seem to believe ("truths" are the bailiwick of philosophers and Popes).

You are trying to make some kind of philosophic statement here that you mean to be true, but it is unclear just what that statement is.
Please clarify.

Your confusion seems to be that you don't know what science is. Scientific theories are not statements of "truth". They are conditional mathematical models that describe observations. "Goddidit" is an unconditional (and unsupported with data) statement of "truth" from religion.

I have never said that there exists a scientific model for the theistic God. I contend the science supports a premise in an argument that infers the theistic God exists. There is a big difference there. You seemed to be confused to what I was asserting. I’m not asserting that science alone can prove the existence of a theistic God.

….Scientific theories are rejected because they fail to explicitly mathematically explain observations or fail to predict future observations…

That was exactly my point with mathematically rejecting DBT’s presented cyclic model. But you claimed I did not understand science and created a straw man.

But I'll try. Scientific theories are rejected because they fail to explicitly mathematically explain observations or fail to predict future observations. If you can offer indisputable observational evidence of your god then you are talking science ….

Hold on. Examine my approach. I’m not saying there is a scientific model for God. I’m claiming science supports a premise in a valid argument that infers the existence of the theistic God.

Also just as importantly I’m asserting that scientific explanation is not the only level of rational explanation for an effect.

…… however if you only philosophize that there must be a god because "we don't know... yet" (god of the gaps spackle) then you have nothing but faith and belief.

I’m not arguing that we don’t know yet. I’m arguing that the most plausible cosmological model SBBM and the BGV theorem indicate that the universe is not past eternal. That material, space, time, matter and energy is not past eternal. I have supported this with science and quotes from leading atheistic scientists themselves. Almost certainly the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. Also the universe exists and needs an explanation of its existence.

From that point we forensically examine the universe and compile a list of characteristics of that cause. I contend that the forensically compiled list of characteristics matches the established characteristics of the theistic God.

Therefore What Gap?

Further…..epistemology?……. Why is it you appear to think science is always the only explanation?

Examine….here is an effect….. water is boiling…… explain the effect. Is there only one explanation?

They are testing the theory. If the test confirms the theory then that is nice but the scientist doing the test gets little out of that. However, if the scientist conducting the test finds an error in the theory then that scientist is suddenly a celebrity, especially if he can offer a new theory that replaces the old one, then his name will be remembered for generations.

Now I see that script as a piece of philosophical hand waving. Meaning I disagree (in context) with your rationale to “that” being the sole purpose of and definition of science. Very subjective.


Consider the history of the singularity theorems. They have not been rejected, they have been refined. Penrose through Vilenkin very respected.

It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations.

Concur.
However, more specifically what was he evidence that pointed to eternity.
That you failed to address.

The "eternity" was philosophical not scientific... yes sometimes some scientists philosophize as I explained earlier but they base their philosophies on what is observed. i.e. at the time the steady state was the most favored, the position of stars were defined by their coordinates. Astronomers could reliably point their telescopes to those coordinates and always find the star there. They were there last year and were predicted to be there next year. Philosophizing from this since the stars were that last year they were there two years ago, and two years before that, and two years before that... etc.

Sincerely thank you for making that great point.

Also…….Notice this connection to a previous issue of explanation…..your terminology…. “as I explained” is certainly an acceptable explanation of your prior post. It would be ridiculous to assert that is not an explanation because it was not a scientific explanation.

 

[remez]

You misrepresent both science and the nature and significance of faith, wilfully ignoring that in science, working models based on observations do not require supernatural elements to make the model valid, or to give it better explanatory ability.

Bad memory. It is you that misrepresents or misunderstands my position. We spoke of this earlier. Here post 139….

On the other hand, we have no indication of the existence of a creator. So, as a model, a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe has no evidential basis or support.

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist. Thus its cause had to be beyond nature. The characteristics of that cause match the characteristics of God. It is a direct inferential trial.

Again you seem to be espousing the self-refuting epistemology that all reason stops at the limits of science. More specifically you seem to be saying since science cannot study God then God cannot exist. My evidence …. You claim that God as a scientific model (un-pendantic) is not a scientific /natural explanation. I know he’s not. I’m not asserting the cause must be natural. That would be begging the question like you.

Science can’t examine that which is beyond the cause of nature, BUT Reason can. We have good grounds to believe God exists based upon a combination of scientific, metaphysical, philosophical and theological reasoning from the same evidence we are both looking at. My scope of reasoning just isn’t as narrow minded as yours.

Clearly I do not believe that any scientific model posits a supernatural entity.

Several times I have pointed this out to you.

I contend that….SCIENCE SUPPORTS a premise……in an argument……… that concludes a supernatural entity.

That’s a BIG difference.

You keep making these remarks as if you actually provided a valid argument for your position.

No such thing has happened. Your posts consist entirely of this kind of assertion.

I have repeatedly referred to two very common cosmological arguments. You have yet to demonstrate that any premise is plausibly false or that the conclusion does not follow from the premises, thus the arguments remain valid. Now you may not be compelled by them to adjust your beliefs, but that does not alter their validity.

A necessity for God (whatever that is) is your own claim. A claim that you have not justified, only asserted.

Again I have referred to two cosmological arguments that you have not invalidated as of yet. You have challenged a premise with science. But I have demonstrated that my scientific support (SBBM and singularity theorems) is stronger than your scientific attempts (cyclic) to prove the premise implausible. Specifically ……..here the universe began to exist. Therefore it has a cause. Also since the universe exists it is in need of an explanation for its existence.

Thus I have not simply asserted….I have provided and defended an argument.

Assertion alone does not justify a claim.

I concur. That is why I provided the cosmological arguments supported by science, philosophy and theology.

Remember I was specifically challenged to provide reasons for the existence of the theistic God.

Now, other posters including myself have provided current models that are built on faith or require a supernatural entity, which you simply reject or brush aside, only to assert your beliefs again and again.

I knew what you meant and would not have challenged you on the typo.

I wish to redress your overly simplistic brush off terminology.

Specifically, in the course of my defense, I asserted the universe is not past eternal to support a premise on the table for discussion. I supported my assertion with the SBBM and the singularity theorems. SCIENCE.

You and others tried to present other models that would provide for either a past eternal universe or a past eternal material environment from which to universe was caused. I properly demonstrated that your model was not supported by the evidence. That actually there exists scientific evidence that renders your model, to say the least, ineffective. I did not simply brush it off. I properly showed you your model was flawed and likely not even a plausible model anymore. I showed you this with science, not some subjective brush off that you continue to assert.

It really is this simple …… reasonably answer my question regarding the history of an eternal static universe in a fashion that holds consistent to your own reasoning. Again I contend that you cannot, while at the same time demonstrating that my position is wrong. For I’m certain that anything reasonable that you should offer will provide me the same avenue as well. Good Luck.

Yawn....another strawman....I don't think that anybody, certainly not me, has even mentioned an ''eternal static universe.''

Again you are out of context here. Let’s reset the table.

You stated that my reasoning was in error based on the notion I did not show that the theistic God was eternal. Several times. In others words, now that I scientifically rendered your model implausible you (and Juma) now shift the goal post to the issue of the theistic God being eternal and call it an error in my reasoning. How could I prove theistic God was eternal? It is a theological given that the theistic God is eternal, but now you (&Juma) are denying that, and that I must prove it or “my reasoning” is in error. I further reasoned that you were going to limit the epistemology to science only and proclaim all other reasoning in error. So rather than try to challenge you on a theological issue, I decided to present the charge that you (&Juma) moved goal post and tried to kick a longer field goal anyway. How?..................

So I reflected the challenge back at you. You and others (particularly Juma) have tried to present scientific models that render the universe as eternal. How can you do that? How can scientific models, past or present, consider the universe eternal? Here…..

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 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?

You have repeatedly avoided this challenge. Others folks have not. As I pointed out earlier …. Any epistemology you or anyone else could provide for science considering the universe eternal would also have to rationally allow the eternality of the theistic God as well. Mission accomplished below. Thus all that remains is your defense of moving the goal posts for there is no error in philosophically reasoning theistic God is eternal if one can philosophically reason the universe is eternal.

As for your ridiculous straw man charge…..part of this conversation was quoted, and thus historically evidenced in my last post to you……rendering your charge even sillier…..

Here is my longer field goal..............

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…..

Why and how did science hold this belief?
Specifically was it a scientific theory supported by evidence or was it philosophically reasoned?
How could science postulate eternity?
Was it just assumed?

…… It was the most popular because it was the most simple explanation that provided a mathematical model for observations…..

Concur.
However, more specifically what was the evidence that pointed to eternity.
That you failed to address.

The "eternity" was philosophical not scientific... yes sometimes some scientists philosophize as I explained earlier but they base their philosophies on what is observed. i.e. at the time the steady state was the most favored, the position of stars were defined by their coordinates. Astronomers could reliably point their telescopes to those coordinates and always find the star there. They were there last year and were predicted to be there next year. Philosophizing from this since the stars were that last year they were there two years ago, and two years before that, and two years before that... etc. There is no Unobserved magic needed to be added to the observed data.

And I agree.

So………………..yes it was discussed (bogus straw man charge)

and

rational philosophy provides justified reason to assign eternality to an entity.

 

[Juma]

You have asserted multiple times, but never presented a complete argument.

Seriously? ….178.
Note It was once again addressed here and I mentioned how you had been ignoring it.

Moving on…………

1) the current universe started some finite time ago

Theistic position supported by science …… 1) the universe had an absolute beginning.

2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

Now I asked you earlier to list the characteristics that the cause of the universe would have to possess. Just like examining a crime scene. Look at the universe with an absolute beginning and forensically list the characteristics of its cause.

That something had to be eternal, immaterial, beyond nature, timeless sans causation, powerful and an intelligent personal agent.

Now that list of characteristics is not arbitrary. The list of characteristics is compiled from a forensic investigation of what characteristics the cause of the universe with an absolute beginning would possess.


That list just happens to identify the main suspect as the theistic God.

While at the same time eliminating all of your unreasonable “natural suspects” and the non-theistic gods as well.

Now let’s go through your lineup.

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe

See e).

b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)

Fails the BGV theorem. Doesn’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. Insufficient mass to reverse expansion. Entropy issues cannot be resolved sufficient enough to render these models reasonable. Gets pretty ad hoc attempting to hurdle all of the defects.

c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.

You fail to see that there was no space, time, mass, or energy for this fiction. Perhaps if you could provide some common revelation I could study this further. In other words I willing to entertain your scenario as long as you can provide a common history of revelation.

d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.

Fails quantum, mechanically. Its probability of collapse is non-zero thus it couldn’t have existed eternally.

e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.

Multiverse scenarios….. Again are crushed by the BGV theorem. Meaning they still have a finite past thus do not eliminate the need for a cause. Provide one that does get around the BGV theorem and then we might have something reasonable to discuss.

Your alternative of "an intelligent mind creating the universe from nothing" is just one of infinite possible alternatives.

Only if you ignore the process the theist is employing to get from a cause to the theistic God. And since that is what you are arbitrarily doing your attempted refutations are unreasonable.

Your talk about "necessary" is just bullshit. We cannot know wether there is anything that is "necessary".

“MY talk?” You really don’t understand the argument you are trying to defeat. Logic demands that since something exists then something has to be necessary. I didn’t make this up. This has been debated for thousands of years. Look it up.

And even if there are, we cannit know wether something specific is "necessary" or not.

Try forensic science and reasoning and give your arbitrary fictions a rest.

One more quick find from many others…………..

Indeed, there are an infinity of such possibilities,

Indeed. So how does the theist move from the universe needing a cause to that cause is the theistic God? Is it an arbitrary “love me-love me not” flower pedal plucking approach? Is it a blind faith approach? Is it a matter of subjective opinion? What if I told you that the approach the theist employs here is a rational combination of science, metaphysics, philosophy and theology?
Simple process actually. Forensically compile a list of characteristics that the cause of the universe would need to possess, if indeed it had an absolute beginning.
This is a forensic (scientific) exercise mind you.….

Here is yet another exchange as evidence…………..

On the other hand, we have no indication of the existence of a creator. So, as a model, a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe has no evidential basis or support.

Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few. The most reasonable interpretation of that evidence is the universe began period. No wildly imagined previous states, it began to exist. Thus its cause had to be beyond nature. The characteristics of that cause match the characteristics of God. It is a direct inferential trial.

Again you seem to be espousing the self-refuting epistemology that all reason stops at the limits of science. More specifically you seem to be saying since science cannot study God then God cannot exist. My evidence …. You claim that God as a scientific model (un-pendantic) is not a scientific /natural explanation. I know he’s not. I’m not asserting the cause must be natural. That would be begging the question like you.

Science can’t examine that which is beyond the cause of nature, BUT Reason can. We have good grounds to believe God exists based upon a combination of scientific, metaphysical, philosophical and theological reasoning from the same evidence we are both looking at. My scope of reasoning just isn’t as narrow minded as yours.

Eh. This nowhere near a complete argument, this is a snapshot of an ongoing discussion where you pull multiple ridiculous claims right out you sleeve.
They are ridiculous because:

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

4) the BGV is built on general relativity and thus fails to take quantum mechanics into consideration and thus says nothing about what happened before inflation

5) quantum mechanics and general relativity are models of how this universe behaves. There is no reason to believe that those must be valid in any universe.

6) we are the result of evolution on this planet, in this part of our universe. There is no reason to believe that the "reasons" for our universe (reasons which lies outside our universe) must be compatible with our faculties for making the world comprehensible.


7) forensic methods can be used when we know the milieu and background. We can deduce who did it by weighing probabilities and exclude impossibilities. And then we select a probable suspect. This has NO similarity with the beginning of the universe.

 

[DBT]

Bad memory. It is you that misrepresents or misunderstands my position. We spoke of this earlier.

Not bad memory, a bad argument that I have to respond to.

On the hand you do indeed give lip service to scientific models that do not require a creator, and on the other hand you make claims such as this:

'The beginning of nature is the limit of science.

I was saying its narrow thinking (self-defeating actually) to assert that science is the only way to knowledge.

I value the epistemological power of science. But science alone is self-defeating

So you make what superficially sounds like the right noises about scientific models that work without the need for a Creator - - yet reject them on the basis of your claim that 'science alone is self defeating' and 'the beginning of nature is the limit of science' at which point you assert your own arbitrary rules and conditions.

If science cannot test its BB model beyond the limit of 300 thousand years because photons had not yet formed, how is faith supposed to do better? Because it says so in a Holy Book? That's evidence? That's a better option? Because you desire the existence of a God? Does that make it viable? Desire is not evidence that supports a proposition.

So you have no case, yet continue to argue from assertion.


Asserting that ''the beginning of nature is the limit of science'' when you don't actually have a viable alternative. Faith is not a good tool for discovery or sorting fact from fiction.

You assert that ''science alone is self-defeating'' yet have no evidence for your own faith based model, god did it, which is self defeating.

 

[bilby]

Of course, it remains possible that the universe itself is eternal. That would completely demolish the idea of a creator; and it's not a particularly outlandish hypothesis - indeed it has been suggested that it might also solve the dark energy problem, which is notoriously the home of the worst result in physics. Currently the theoretical value for dark energy is 10¹²⁰ times the observed value, so any new theory that produces an answer that is closer to observed reality is certainly worth a second look.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Eliminating the singularity would imply an eternal universe.

 

[remez]

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

I was providing “evidence” and “reasons” for the existence of a theistic God. Nowhere have I ever set the standard of reason at “proof.” Not even science does that. Proof is only found in mathematics and logic.
So………

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

What do you mean by proof?
Did you perhaps mean to say evidence?
What is the relationship between science and proof?
Other than mathematics and logic does proof exist?
Your standard…..your thoughts????

1) there is no proof of "necessary" things.

However this one is a conclusion of logic. Where is the logic wrong?
Remember historically many scientists reasonably inferred that the universe was necessary. What was their “proof” to reason so?

2) there is no proof that universe need to have a cause.

I concur in the context of proof.

But logically the universe would need a cause if it began to exist. And I have provided science that reasonably infers that it almost certainly did begin to exist. I have provided quotes from atheistic scientists that agree. Atheistic scientists are now even writing books about how the universe began. From there it is logical that it has a cause.

3) there is no proof that the universe cannot have spawned from another universe.

Again I agree with you as to the issue of proof here as well. But again I provided better scientific evidence and reason that it could not have come from an eternal material environment.

As for the rest…..I opt for the short cut you provided……..so here is what happens when you raise the standard of reasoning to “proof”…………..

4) the BGV is built on general relativity and thus fails to take quantum mechanics into consideration and thus says nothing about what happened before inflation

5) quantum mechanics and general relativity are models of how this universe behaves. There is no reason to believe that those must be valid in any universe.

6) we are the result of evolution on this planet, in this part of our universe. There is no reason to believe that the "reasons" for our universe (reasons which lies outside our universe) must be compatible with our faculties for making the world comprehensible.


7) forensic methods can be used when we know the milieu and background. We can deduce who did it by weighing probabilities and exclude impossibilities. And then we select a probable suspect. This has NO similarity with the beginning of the universe.

Well……………………..

this is a snapshot of an ongoing discussion where you pull multiple ridiculous claims right out you sleeve.
They are ridiculous because:

You can’t prove them……….end of discussion.

But I have demonstrated that I’m willing to be reasonable.