Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[DBT]

Here’s the catch, science doesn’t say anything scientists do.

It was shorthand for ''science' as in the scientific method and those who work in the field. This shouldn't need explaining.

We are both looking at the same evidence. I see (not blind faith) the “natural development” of the universe as strong evidence that God does exist. You claim that you see it differently. So what is the difference in our assumptions and epistemologies that cause us to see it differently?

The available evidence, red shift, cosmological background radiation, etc, is simply evidence for an expanding universe. It implies nothing in terms of the work or existence of a creator or creators.

Just to be clear here I think it’s a very plausible model (inflation era) and I was not indicating it was the model or God. I think the model most plausibility illustrates the details of that creation era.

Is there an apparent connection between inflation and a 'creation era?' As you happen to believe that there is, that is what you need to demonstrate...how precisely that connection is to be made. You have not done that. You are merely asserting a connection.

1) How is God more complex?

So a God is simpler than the object of its creation? God is not Omniscient? God is not Omnipotent? The mind of God is not as complex as the object of creation? It is simpler than the Universe and anything it contains?

Why is your interpretation correct?

Interpretation of what exactly? There is evidence that the Universe exists. There is evidence that it is expanding. It is not known whether it had a beginning or has always existed in some form...or if it is a part of a larger system.

There is nothing that necessarily points to a creator.

 

[abaddon]

remez, nobody has to oppose your “best explanation” with a better one. All it takes to overturn a proposition that’s presented as necessarily true is to offer another reasonable possibility. You must illustrate the necessity of your premises and conclusion. You have not done so, and it’s not likely that you or anyone ever will because it’s entirely linguistic and there’s no good reason to not doubt such an argument.

You reference an obscurity (a supernatural God) to explain the obscure (how it all began). But God is an explanation only insofar as God himself is explained. You can’t just say he’s the only non-contingent around, as nature too might be an eternal self-caused or self-existing "entity" and it has the advantage of being visible and letting us examine it and share our knowledge with each other about it. If you can explain God and illustrate him in ways that other people can say “Ah, yes, God” then he’s viable as an explanation.

As far as science goes, it’s not really even necessary to hold to metaphysical naturalism. Some scientists are theists, some are pantheists, some are atheists. Regardless, they all use methodological naturalism because this assumption works.

If you want God to be an object of study for a more “open-minded” science then do this:

Present God as a viable hypothesis that can be “tested” in a way that would allow the hypothesis to be falsified.

If you think the question is too limiting, then can you describe how a science that doesn’t do that would have practical application to anything? Would it anticipate God’s mind and find his purpose in creating everything or what?

 

[remez]

1) Remember that time itself started with the universe. There is no "before the universe". So there cannot have been a cause.

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

2) "cause and effect" is no physical law, it is metaphysics. There is one law though and that is that IF there is a cause it must occur before the effect. But since time started when the universe did so...

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

 

[remez]

The available evidence, red shift, cosmological background radiation, etc, is simply evidence for an expanding universe. It implies nothing in terms of the work or existence of a creator or creators.

The scientific evidence of an expanding universe most plausibly infers that the universe began to exist.
From there…………….
A reasonable interpretation of that evidence asserts the universe is contingent and not necessary.
Also….
Another reasonable interpretation of that evidence asserts that the universe needs a cause.
From there ………….

We can reasonably compile a list of characteristics the cause should possess based upon the evidence of the effect.

This list of characteristics most plausibly describes the Biblical God and him only.

THUS here in this context, it is not blind faith. It is a trail of reasonable inference from the evidence.

The mind of God is not as complex as the object of creation? It is simpler than the Universe and anything it contains?

The mind is simple in essence and powerful in spirit.

Interpretation of what exactly?

This…………..idk Planck you keep walking…….

It is not known whether it had a beginning or has always existed in some form...or if it is a part of a larger system.

It is most plausibly known to have a beginning. Your other speculations don’t line up with the evidence we have. They’re desperations loved more by the journalists than the scientists.

The skeptic idk Planck is getting shorter, day by day, understanding upon understanding.

Your interpretation rests solely on your self-refuting epistemology that nothing can be absolutely known. Thus you can reject reasonable interpretations because you can always assert we don’t actually know anything for certain.

Have you ever heard a judge instruct the jury to separate what is reasonable from what is imaginable?

 

[remez]

remez, nobody has to oppose your “best explanation” with a better one. All it takes to overturn a proposition that’s presented as necessarily true is to offer another reasonable possibility.

It takes more than just an offer. You need to examine the evidence and reasoning to determine which offering is the best explanation. Two hundred years ago the universe was plausibly necessary. The evidence now indicates that the universe is contingent.

You must illustrate the necessity of your premises and conclusion.

No you must show where the premises are false. Since anything at all exists then reason demands that something has to be necessary, thus eternal, uncaused and self-existing.

You have not done so, and it’s not likely that you or anyone ever will because it’s entirely linguistic and there’s no good reason to not doubt such an argument.

Your refutation is self-refuting. Observe…………… right back at you.......

You have not illustrated where the premises are false. You have not done so, and it’s not likely that you or anyone ever will because it’s entirely linguistic and there’s no good reason to not doubt such a refutation.

Now I personally would not suggest that you or only one cannot illustrate where a premise is false. I’m still just waiting for you to illustrate that it is.

You reference an obscurity (a supernatural God) to explain the obscure (how it all began).

Your “obscure” is relative to your desire to examine the case.

Obscure God? I get the feeling that you think this definition of the Biblical God is made up (obscure) like some kind of super hero. That is yet a different topic to what we are discussing here. Quickly…..the Biblical God is not a super hero with arbitrary characteristics. The Biblical God as revealed by the Bible, creation, history, etc. matches the conditions of the necessary cause for a universe that most plausibly had a beginning. “How” he did it is obscure to me. Should we keep trying to understand how he did it?….. absolutely.

But God is an explanation only insofar as God himself is explained.

That is an illogical epistemology for it leads to an infinite regress.

You can’t just say he’s the only non-contingent around,

I’m not saying that. I am saying that the universe got moved to the contingency column.

, as nature too might be an eternal self-caused or self-existing "entity" and it has the advantage of being visible and letting us examine it and share our knowledge with each other about it.

That is your premise and the evidence and reason are stacked against it. Thus your premise is more plausibly false, because it is justified only by the magic of self-creation or the denial of obvious contingency. It’s a blind faith in a nature of the gaps ideology.

and it has the advantage of being visible and letting us examine it and share our knowledge with each other about it.

Correct. We are both examining the same evidence. It is evidence that is in need of a cause. But you are assuming your conclusion.
The universe has to have a natural materialistic answer because it has to be natural. Even though evidence and reason imply a cause external to nature.

If you can explain God and illustrate him in ways that other people can say “Ah, yes, God” then he’s viable as an explanation.

I repeat any epistemology that espouses one need to know completely the explanation of the explanation before one can justify a belief leads to an infinite regress and thus no belief can be justified.

As far as science goes, it’s not really even necessary to hold to metaphysical naturalism.

Please explain. Science is limited to the study of nature. What we learn from science may have further reaching implications, but science itself is limited to nature.

Some scientists are theists, some are pantheists, some are atheists.

Of course these are worldviews. Science is not, well shouldn't be.

Regardless, they all use methodological naturalism because this assumption works.

Yes because that is a reasonable method of science. But science itself is but one tool for understanding. Methodological naturism can't account for everything. To assert that is does would be self-refuting.

If you want God to be an object of study for a more “open-minded” science then do this:

It is not what I want. Science cannot study God. I can scientifically study his creation and thus use scientific evidence to support premises in an argument that concludes God existence. But science by definition is limited to only nature.

Are you asserting that science is the only source of knowledge?

 

[Juma]

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

2) "cause and effect" is no physical law, it is metaphysics. There is one law though and that is that IF there is a cause it must occur before the effect. But since time started when the universe did so...

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

I wont answer you until you have proper response to post 104.

 

[DBT]

The mind is simple in essence and powerful in spirit.

What does that even mean?

1-What do you mean by 'mind?'

2 -What is its 'essence?'

3 - What exactly is this 'power of the mind?'

Nor did you address my question.

This…………..idk Planck you keep walking…….

This means nothing.

It is most plausibly known to have a beginning. Your other speculations don’t line up with the evidence we have. They’re desperations loved more by the journalists than the scientists.

No such thing is ''known.'' Whether time had a beginning or not is not known. The Universe may be cyclic or a part of a larger system....or something not yet considered, but none of this is known.

Your interpretation rests solely on your self-refuting epistemology that nothing can be absolutely known.

I didn't say that nothing can be known. Or that nothing can be understood.

Science is a work in progress.

Not everything is understood. Does it mean that we should jump to conclusions - God did it - because we do not know how the Universe began, if it's cyclic or a part of a greater system?

'God did it' would be an unfounded assumption. An assumption/conviction that is based on faith.

Not knowing is the honest position....which is not a matter of faith or conviction but justified by the state of our current understanding. We do not know.

Have you ever heard a judge instruct the jury to separate what is reasonable from what is imaginable?

That's quite ironic.

 

[abaddon]

This thread’s been at the point where the theist just keeps announcing “my argument is logical, it really is!” over and over and over for some pages now and obliging any atheist willing to be patient with that to keep repeating why it’s not.

remez, we "get it". We know what you're saying. This argument isn't news, and you've had your answer; you'll find the same criticisms, maybe in more formal format, in philosophy of religion books. Your insistence we can't just cast doubt on your premises or must supply another "best explanation" only shows you don't really know logic like you think you do. The invitation to move on to something else at the end of my last post was just that. To see if this is going anywhere beyond just the “god did it” assertion.

 

[remez]

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

I wont answer you until you have proper response to post 104.

I’m confused. I already responded to that one. You already quoted from my response. So what’s the issue?

 

[remez]

It is most plausibly known to have a beginning. Your other speculations don’t line up with the evidence we have. They’re desperations loved more by the journalists than the scientists.

No such thing is ''known.''

Only because you are ignoring the most rational interpretation of the evidence. Or possibly you are over restricting justified belief to the absolutism of mathematical proof.

Whether time had a beginning or not is not known.

How much is known vs how much is unknown?
13.7 billion vs Planck. Do the math.
The most rational inference, the most rational understanding of the evidence is that time began?

I didn't say that nothing can be known. Or that nothing can be understood.

Then how is it not mathematically understood that time most plausibly had a beginning?

The Universe may be cyclic

Really again?
Then you have to ignore the opposing scientific evidence that our expansion rate is accelerating and that the material density of the universe is nowhere near the quantity needed to reverse this acceleration. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin’s math indicates that the universe certainly had a starting point ……………

………… A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us.
One hypothesis about a cyclic universe avoids this problem of thermodynamics, though. There are models of a cyclic universe in which the volume grows in every cycle. This way, the universe expands and contracts, but contracts to a larger volume than in the previous cycle. So even though disorder increases, disorder per unit volume doesn’t change.
That’s possible, but then our 2003 theorem poses a problem because if the volume of the universe grows, then there must have been a beginning. So the cyclic universe scenario doesn’t avoid a beginning either. ……..
- See more at: http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning#sthash.y2ueZpNW.dpuf

Your suggested model requires a blind faith in the face of some pretty stiff evidence. But by all means keep investigating.

….. or a part of a larger system....or something not yet considered,

I’m assuming you mean a larger NATURAL system lest we be on the same page.
Where is your evidence for this larger natural system or should we believe it by blind faith?
Sounding even more desperate with that one. Your statement pleads nature of the gaps. The universe may be part of some larger natural eternal system rather than ignoring the more plausible beginning. Which choice has the more rational explanation?

 

[remez]

This thread’s been at the point where the theist just keeps announcing “my argument is logical, it really is!” over and over and over for some pages now and obliging any atheist willing to be patient with that to keep repeating why it’s not.

No one has shown any premise to be false. Your skepticism alone is not a refutation.

Your insistence we can't just cast doubt on your premises or must supply another "best explanation" only shows you don't really know logic like you think you do.

First, you bemoan my insistence that you can’t simply present doubt as a counter. Explain how simply offering some irrational piece of skepticism refutes the true conclusion of an argument. You read some atheistic blogger once decry something irrational that matched what you wanted to believe. But, if you had researched a little you would have noticed your presented counter was rejected as irrational. Your skepticism alone is not a refutation. Your presented skepticism barely smudges the surface. You even suggested that God could be the object of scientific study. You espoused a self-refuting justification of falsification and you appear to present that science is the only pathway to knowledge. You have demonstrated that you are not up to speed with the proper understanding of philosophy or the science or the theology to discuss the topic effectively. It’ your faith that’s simply a blind faith and yet you emote yourself the reasonable one.

Second, I did not ask you to make up some best explanation. I provided you with an exhaustive list (context to the subject) of the alternatives and rationally asked which the best was. It’s called abductive reasoning. Go look it up. That is what you are somehow reasoning as unreasonable or perhaps you completely missed that form of reasoning.

Thirdly, be more specific, where is my logic is wrong. Or is this another one of your “I don’t need reasons I only have to decry you’re wrong” and that’s good enough. Your response will be telling.

The invitation to move on to something else at the end of my last post was just that

You presented an irrational procedure of progress. You presented that we study God using science. Two rational problems there that I have already redressed. You suggested that falsification had to be the means of judgement. Falsification is self-defeating, hence why it should not be the only line of justification. If you understood philosophy, science or theology you would have noticed that your “invitation” was wrought with error.
And then you end with………..

To see if this is going anywhere beyond just the “god did it” assertion.

An argument is not an assertion and again your skepticism without rational reasoning does not defeat either argument.

 

[bilby]

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe has a beginning, and that this implies a cause (both of which premises are far from certain), then we can conclude that something caused the universe to start.

The missing link in this is the bit where we leap to the conclusion that that 'something' is in any way similar to any of the myriad ideas that have been given the name 'God'; much less is similar to any particular instance of such a 'God' concept.

The God of the Christian (and by extension, the Abrahamic) traditions is said to have created the universe; but that doesn't justify the conclusion that, if the universe started, it was started by the Christian God; Any more than the existence of Harry Potter, who is said to have slept in a cupboard under the stairs, has been proven to exist because we have shown that such cupboards can be used as a place to sleep.

We can say that it is possible - perhaps even plausible - that something has always existed; we can say that it is reasonable to declare the Big Bang to be the beginning of our universe; and we can conclude that something other than our universe is eternal and uncaused - or at least, that that something caused our universe to begin. But we cannot, on the basis of this string of presumptions, say ANYTHING about the nature of that cause.

And there are many hypotheses that are far more parsimonious than any intelligent entity; for example, it may be that time is cyclic, and that the cause of the start of our present universe is the end of an earlier universe. That hypothesis no more leads to an infinite regress than does the hypothesis that the change of date at the international dateline leads to an infinite circumference for the Earth. Or there may be an object that spawns universes, but has no other interaction with them once they are spawned - and that object need be no more intelligent or powerful than the rock chucked in a pond that creates ripples.

As a proof that any of the things people have called 'God' is real, the argument that a creator is necessary is incredibly weak; unless you wish to redefine the word 'God' to mean NOTHING MORE than creator.

The argument that 'the creator' and 'the Christian God' are necessarily the same thing, or even the same kind of thing is, frankly, as sane as the proof that my vacuum cleaner is a wizard who attends Hogwarts, as proven by it's living under my stairs.

 

[DBT]

No such thing is ''known.''

Only because you are ignoring the most rational interpretation of the evidence. Or possibly you are over restricting justified belief to the absolutism of mathematical proof.

There is no available evidence to interpret in terms of creation. As it now stands, the universe may or may not have had a beginning, it may or may not be a part of greater system, quantum interpretation may entail wave collapse or the many worlds interpretation.

None of these models and interpretations necessarily require the action of a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe.

They are not my interpretations, but the state of our understanding based on the available literature.

It is not science, but the theists themselves who insists that a creator is a necessary explanation.

How much is known vs how much is unknown?
13.7 billion vs Planck. Do the math.
The most rational inference, the most rational understanding of the evidence is that time began?

No, you are confusing the beginning of the universe in its current form with the beginning of time. As I've already said, the universe may be cyclic or part of a larger system, if that is the case, time did not begin 13.7 billion years ago, only the start of this cycle of inflation.

Really again?
Then you have to ignore the opposing scientific evidence that our expansion rate is accelerating and that the material density of the universe is nowhere near the quantity needed to reverse this acceleration. Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin’s math indicates that the universe certainly had a starting point ……………A cyclic universe runs into the second law of thermodynamics, which says that any system left to itself eventually reaches the state of maximum disorder, called thermal equilibrium. So if the universe were cyclic, then in every cycle, the disorder in the universe would increase. Eventually the universe would reach this thermal equilibrium state, which is a totally featureless mixture of everything—this is not what we see around us.

All of the models you mention are incomplete. There are several different models of a cyclic universe, some based on quantum interpretations, colliding branes for example, expansion > collision with neighbouring brane > collapse > new cycle begins.

The point is, these are just models based on various interpretations of physics, branes, etc.

''In the cyclic universe, at regular intervals of trillions of years, these two branes smash together. This creates all kinds of excitations—particles and radiation. The collision thereby heats up the branes, and then they bounce apart again. The branes are attracted to each other through a force that acts just like a spring, causing the branes come together at regular intervals. To describe it more completely, what's happening is that the universe goes through two kinds of stages of motion. When the universe has matter and radiation in it, or when the branes are far enough apart, the main motion is the branes stretching, or, equivalently, our three-dimensions expanding. During this period, the branes more or less remain a fixed distance apart. That's what's been happening, for example, in the last 15 billion years. During these stages, our three dimensions are stretching just as they normally would. At a microscopic distance away, there is another brane sitting and expanding, but since we can't touch, feel, or see across the bulk, we can't sense it directly. If there is a clump of matter over there, we can feel the gravitational effect, but we can't see any light or anything else that it emits, because anything it emits is going to move along that brane. We only see things that move along our own brane.''

''Next, the energy associated with the force between these branes takes over the universe. From our vantage point on one of the branes, this acts just like the dark energy we observe today. It causes the branes to accelerate in their stretching to the point where all the matter and radiation produced since the last collision is spread out, and the branes become essentially smooth, flat, empty surfaces. If you like, you can think of them as being wrinkled and full of matter up to this point, and then stretching by a fantastic amount over the next trillion years. The stretching causes the mass and energy on the brane to thin out and the wrinkles to be smoothed out. After trillions of years, the branes are, for all intents and purposes, smooth, flat, parallel and empty.''


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.

You can't model creation by using an unknown, unknowable, non testable agent.

It's just speculation.

I’m assuming you mean a larger NATURAL system lest we be on the same page.

Don't be so pedantic....everything I've said implies a natural system. After all that is what I am arguing. I shouldn't need to spell it out in every remark I make.

 

[Juma]

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

I wont answer you until you have proper response to post 104.

I’m confused. I already responded to that one. You already quoted from my response. So what’s the issue?

104 is the post you shelfed.

 

[remez]

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

I wont answer you until you have proper response to post 104.

I’m confused. I already responded to that one. You already quoted from my response. So what’s the issue?

104 is the post you shelfed.

I responded in Post 114 here ...........

The point was that your example sucks, not that is ok for an explanation to state something more complex to explain something else. We already have 1) observation of human writers, 2) explanation for where humans comes from (evolution) and 3) a complex milieu where it is possible: the universe.

Without any of this "a human wrote it" would suck as anvexplanation.

First I like your intelligently designed reasoning and will shelf it for right now.
Second evolution tells us where humans come from. We are yet again looking for an origin. Please explain how evolution explains the origin of human life? Wait to save you time I will continue the regress back to the “biological singularity” life form non-life. Because ultimately that’s where humans came from, Right? So how does evolution explain life from non-life?

But you are prepared to call "a god" an explanation without having any explanation of where this god comes from.

No.

I didn't shelf the whole response. I ONLY shelved a developing idea. AGAIN You offered a piece of abductive reasoning which I AGREED with, but I felt it actually was going to help my case down the road. So rather than pursue that rabbit trail, I'll just leave it on the shelf until I need it again down the road. So on that idea I conditionally agreed with you and moved on. That's all. I did not dis your post. I responded.

 

[Juma]

So I’m assuming you’re referring to an efficient cause and not a material cause. Thus you are claiming there is no efficient cause because it did not take place in space or time. Which if you examine that closely, you should notice that your refutation is self-refuting. Self-refuting refutations aren’t cause for a false premise.

…… so …. reason beyond the physics. You said so yourself. Think about it …. The laws of logic are immaterial. Not physical. Metaphysics.

3) Quantum mechanics shows that there are plenty of uncaused events.

And thunder is the sound of the gods bowling. Not knowing “how” does not mean it was uncaused. I advocate we keep trying to understand rather than to give up and say it was magically uncaused.

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

Don’t forget post 114.

I wont answer you until you have proper response to post 104.

I’m confused. I already responded to that one. You already quoted from my response. So what’s the issue?

104 is the post you shelfed.

I responded in Post 114 here ...........

The point was that your example sucks, not that is ok for an explanation to state something more complex to explain something else. We already have 1) observation of human writers, 2) explanation for where humans comes from (evolution) and 3) a complex milieu where it is possible: the universe.

Without any of this "a human wrote it" would suck as anvexplanation.

First I like your intelligently designed reasoning and will shelf it for right now.
Second evolution tells us where humans come from. We are yet again looking for an origin. Please explain how evolution explains the origin of human life? Wait to save you time I will continue the regress back to the “biological singularity” life form non-life. Because ultimately that’s where humans came from, Right? So how does evolution explain life from non-life?

But you are prepared to call "a god" an explanation without having any explanation of where this god comes from.

No.

I didn't shelf the whole response. I ONLY shelved a developing idea. AGAIN You offered a piece of abductive reasoning which I AGREED with, but I felt it actually was going to help my case down the road. So rather than pursue that rabbit trail, I'll just leave it on the shelf until I need it again down the road. So on that idea I conditionally agreed you and moved on. That's all. I did not dis your post. I responded.

No, you dodged the central point that your argument failed and instead you created a derail by attacking an unimportant parentesis.

I wait for you to agree that your point was wrong: humans is not an explanation for books if you dont have 1) observations of humans or at least 2) an very plausible explanatation for humans (universe, aborigenesis, evolution, observation of other near human creatures, etc)

 

[abaddon]

No one has shown any premise to be false.

Yes that is correct. And no one needs to.

Your skepticism alone is not a refutation.

I know. I hold to skepticism so long as there's no good argument for God.

First, you bemoan my insistence that you can’t simply present doubt as a counter.

I “bemoan” your insistence that your premises are incontrovertible even though there are good reasons to doubt them.

Explain how simply offering some irrational piece of skepticism refutes the true conclusion of an argument.

Look at how you just throw “true” in there.

Don’t misrepresent your position anymore about you’re just presenting a “best explanation” using abductive reasoning, which inherently cannot determine the conclusion to be true.

It might be that your conclusion is true. But you have not done very well demonstrating it is so, so there’s nothing irrational about doubting its truth. It’s actually the only rational stance.

You read some atheistic blogger once decry something irrational that matched what you wanted to believe. But, if you had researched a little you would have noticed your presented counter was rejected as irrational. Your skepticism alone is not a refutation.

No, wrong again, I’ve read no blogger and didn’t merely believe anything for wanting to. Are you able to imagine a person who doesn’t believe the things he reads for merely wanting to? Or are you just projecting your own mentality onto others?

You even suggested that God could be the object of scientific study.

Nope. I was wondering perhaps if you thought he could be. You made statements that you’re progressing slowly, with a plan, and eventually God might become the subject later. Ultimately it’s not a thread about EoG, but more about comparing scientific method and faith.

Thirdly, be more specific, where is my logic is wrong. Or is this another one of your “I don’t need reasons I only have to decry you’re wrong” and that’s good enough. Your response will be telling.

My response will be misrepresented. I have not just decried that you’re wrong. Your conclusion might be right but your premises and conclusion are weak for reasons that are abundantly named by everyone throughout the thread.

But I’ll address your modal cosmological argument more directly, below.

The invitation to move on to something else at the end of my last post was just that

You presented an irrational procedure of progress.

No, no. You said you were laying the groundwork for a progression of this argument leading to somewhere, using a trial as an analogy, even after having presented the whole of your modal cosmological argument. And so I was just curious what that could be. We’ve been stuck at stage 1 for a very long time now.

and again your skepticism without rational reasoning does not defeat either argument.

If there are alternative possibilities (enough of them already named in the thread) then your premises are not reasonable to assume as true and what you think follows from them cannot be trusted as a valid conclusion. That’s not skepticism without rational reasoning.

---------

I made a quick look and found one version of your argument for god; it might not be your best presentation of it, so if you have one you prefer to this one then present it.

Now………..

Law of causality states for every effect there is a preceding cause. Think about it.

Ok, thinking about it, I realize causality is an attribute of events within nature.

If the universe began to exist then the universe is an effect. Think about it.

Ok. If the universe began then I accept that it is an effect.

So logic demands the universe has a cause. Think about it.

Here’s one way that your logic falls apart. You’re trying to “extrapolate” back to before the universe or nature “began”. You assume a characteristic found within nature (causation) will still apply when you go outside the bounds of nature. Also it’s a fallacy of composition to apply a feature found within something and say it applies to the whole thing.

Get it?

I’m imagining a lawyer presenting his case, trying to convince everyone his reasons are reasonable reasons and that he’s a reasonable person saying this to the jury. “Get it, you idiots?”

The fact that the universe began to exist means it had a external cause.

No it doesn’t necessarily mean that. If your “law of causality” that’s central to your argument applies even at the alleged beginning of 'the universe', then why stop there? Where’d god come from? Saying that “infinite regress” just stops if we slip God in there is special pleading. Proposing a beginning and then asserting god’s the first cause “cuz he’s god” doesn’t solve the dilemma.

That "why does it all exist?" is befuddling doesn’t necessitate an answer. We don’t have to reason out a best explanation; it is not a logical necessity to do so. If uncertainty’s unsettling then that’s a personal issue.

You whittled it down to bare essentials in that post, rather betraying how stupid-simple this argument is. Though that’s the reason it is supposed to be obvious. Neat little trick: take some simple observation within nature, then spin a tale about a supernatural realm and pretend that the simple obviousness is still there. Arguments like this are not the reason any theist “trusts” that his God serves as a good explanation for anything. It’s entirely an after-the-fact rationalization for the “true conclusion” which he already believes.

 

[remez]

If we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe has a beginning, and that this implies a cause (both of which premises are far from certain), then we can conclude that something caused the universe to start.

Still won’t work. You have left yourself an irrational loophole. I’m asserting the best interpretation of the evidence is that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago, period. No former state. It did not exist period. Its cause was logically beyond nature.

We can say that it is possible - perhaps even plausible - that something has always existed; we can say that it is reasonable to declare the Big Bang to be the beginning of our universe; and we can conclude that something other than our universe is eternal and uncaused - or at least, that that something caused our universe to begin.

Concur.

But we cannot, on the basis of this string of presumptions, say ANYTHING about the nature of that cause.

Disagree. For one………..
If NATURE began to exist then reason demands its cause is beyond itself.
Which would mean the cause of nature is beyond nature. Further………
We can also examine nature and determine what would be some of the characteristics of its cause. Just like examining a crime scene for a who dunnit.
That list of characteristic matches the characteristics of God and not the ripple effect of some rock chucking itself into a non-existent river.
You can flow with that if want.

And there are many hypotheses that are far more parsimonious than any intelligent entity; for example, it may be that time is cyclic, and that the cause of the start of our present universe is the end of an earlier universe.

Your loophole appears. This is unreasonable if nature began. As I have pointed out before this still would not eliminate a creator. It only kicks the can down the road. Also the science stands against this model. How can you claim these wild speculations are far more parsimonious than the direct inference from the Standard Model that the universe began?

That hypothesis no more leads to an infinite regress than does the hypothesis that the change of date at the international dateline leads to an infinite circumference for the Earth.

An infinite regress ….no….. But eventually a beginning all the same.

As a proof that any of the things people have called 'God' is real, the argument that a creator is necessary is incredibly weak; unless you wish to redefine the word 'God' to mean NOTHING MORE than creator.

Nothing you have provided falsifies on the premises of the argument. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. So all we have is you don’t seem to like it and that alone renders it weak.

 

[remez]

There is no available evidence to interpret in terms of creation.

Here is the evidence ….. Evidential Scientific support red-shifting, GTR, predictive H/He abundance, 2nd Law of thermodynamics with regards to star formation, CBR, to name a few.
Here is the reasoning again……..

The scientific evidence most plausibly infers that the universe began to exist.
From there…………….
A reasonable interpretation of that evidence asserts the universe is contingent and not necessary.
Also….
Another reasonable interpretation of that evidence asserts that the universe needs a cause.
From there ………….
We can reasonably compile a list of characteristics the cause should possess based upon the evidence of the effect.
This list of characteristics most plausibly describes the Biblical God and him only.
THUS here in this context, it is not blind faith.
It is a trail of reasonable inference from the evidence.

The scientific evidence supports the premise that the universe (nature) began to exist.

As it now stands, the universe may or may not have had a beginning,

Beginning…… 99+ %. No beginning less than planck %. Do the math.
I doubt even Lloyd Christmas would consider those odds a reasonable chance.

it may or may not be a part of greater system

Same odds.

…. , it may or may not be a part of greater system, quantum interpretation may entail wave collapse or the many worlds interpretation.
None of these models and interpretations necessarily require the action of a creator as an explanation for the existence of the universe.

No they do not. But they do require nature to exist eternally. And the evidence does not favor an eternal nature. More on this further down.

They are not my interpretations, but the state of our understanding based on the available literature.

I understand there exist some desperate attempts to make the universe eternal. There is no evidence for these models and a whole lot against them. Their desperate existence doesn’t in anyway cast reasonable doubt on the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence …. The universe began to exist. Keep looking. The long trail of failed attempts only strengthens the Standard Cosmological Model. Which most definitely infers a beginning.... period. That's it .... the beginning of story.

It is not science, but the theists themselves who insists that a creator is a necessary explanation

Science cannot reason beyond the beginning of nature. Science is limited to the study of nature. Just because science is limited, does not mean reason is limited. If nature is contingent then science can’t study the necessary cause of nature. Reason does not end at the limit of science.

No, you are confusing the beginning of the universe in its current form with the beginning of time.

No I’m not. I’m promoting the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence. The universe (time included) flat out began to exist.

. As I've already said, the universe may be cyclic or part of a larger system, if that is the case, time did not begin 13.7 billion years ago, only the start of this cycle of inflation.

As I stated before you have no evidence that these desperate models match reality or can overcome the science that stands against them.
Here is the kicker. Your desperate cyclic or many worlds generator wouldn’t eliminate a necessary cause either. They just kick the can down the road.

The point is, these are just models based on various interpretations of physics, branes, etc.

Yes. Phrenolgy was a model based on various interpretations of biologists, brains etc.
How many universities still seriously study phrenology?

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.

You can't model creation by using an unknown, unknowable, non testable agent.

If narrowly thinking ….. Meaning only science provides knowledge ….. Then I concede you’re right.
But wait …. No …. That concession wasn’t scientific was it? …… so no I guess you’re still wrong.
That’s the problem with scientism.

 

[remez]

I wait for you to agree that your point was wrong: humans is not an explanation for books if you dont have 1) observations of humans or at least 2) an very plausible explanatation for humans (universe, aborigenesis, evolution, observation of other near human creatures, etc)

If I didn’t have 1) and 2), then I would not have offered it as a counter example in the first place.

Now how about addressing some of the other concerns like your defending your quantum magic and abiogenesis.
Or ………..

And: even if there was a cause, causing our universe to be, there is no reason to call it a god.

Then let’s reason…………. Shall we?
For sake of discussion only let’s agree there was a cause so we can reason through your assertion.
What would be some of its characteristics of the cause given what we know about the effect?

It’s no different than investigating a crime scene. Let’s reason through the forensics.