Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[Juma]

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

Then present your 1) and 2).

 

[remez]

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.

The conclusion logically follows from the premises. You have provided nothing but skepticism to challenge the premises.

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.

There you go again. Your “alternative possibilities” are wild speculations in need of your defense because they are unreasonable. The ones named in this thread need defense. I have not ignored them. I have challenged them scientifically. I have challenged their metaphysics. No one has responded to my challenges. You must defend what you present as a counter. That’s how it works. Defend your wild speculations as reasonable in the face of the stronger science and reasoning I have offered against them. Your claim that my premises (supported by stronger science) are weak simply because you named some undefended wild speculation is simply irrational. Defend your assertion.

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.

I know where you going with this. You’re failing to recognize that this attribute is not physical or material and thus bounded by neither.

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.

Yep you did. You would be correct if the laws of logic were a physical characteristic. But they are not physical characteristics bound by the physical. Same reasoning applies to your asserted fallacy feature. Your reasoning fails. Further you are begging the question for materialism when you errantly claim they don’t apply outside of the physically material universe.

See that’s how it works you challenge I counter. Your challenge was mentioned and I countered it. You will not be able to defend your challenge here in any rational manner. Now feel free to challenge again. But your counter here logically fails. And the other wild eternal universe models do as well. Unless of course, you can present some reasoning that presents their cause as more rational. Happy hunting.

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?

I will attend to your special pleading charge in a moment. Heard it many times.
But here….. I said the universe’s cause had to be external. You said no. Then you provided an if-then sentence for …… what purpose? I don’t see how it supports your no or counters my assertion. What were you reasoning here?
Because I really want to know how you can say “no” to the logic I asserted there.

Where’d god come from? Saying that “infinite regress” just stops if we slip God in there…..

God is not slipped in there as you assert to stop an infinite regress. That is a strawman fallacy. The God we’re talking about here has been understood to be eternal by his followers and others for thousands of years. It is a characteristic that in the face of today’s evidence renders him reasonable and all the other non-eternal inside the universe religions unreasonable.

…. slip God in there is special pleading.

Not so. The understanding of God eternality antedates the argument itself. God was considered eternal long before the Greeks (non-Hebrew) first became concerned about the unmoved mover. Which was an earlier version of this argument. Paul quoted them in Acts. Only about 100 hundred years ago many thought the universe was eternal as well as God. Now only God remains. History destroys your assertion of special pleading.

Proposing a beginning and then asserting god’s the first cause “cuz he’s god” …

Straw man fallacy.

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.

No the question is “Why does anything exist at all?” Seeking explanation is science. Assuming you don’t believe your asserted reasoning here applies to the ongoing scientific research being conducted around the world but only to the explanation of the universe itself, then you are committing the taxicab fallacy.

If uncertainty’s unsettling then that’s a personal issue.

It isn’t. I’m more concerned with those who find the obvious unsettling and hide from the explanations.

You whittled it down to bare essentials in that post, rather betraying how stupid-simple this argument is.

And yet your “bright” attempts to refute this stupid-simple argument have all failed. Many of your reasons even shown to be fallacious.

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.

The historical chronology of this argument destroys your reasoning yet again as explained above.

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.

Genetic Fallacy. But anyway ……….. I have witnessed these arguments turn many skeptics into theists. Never on a message board however.

 

[remez]

1) an (eternal) god is an extremely complex entity which is actually harder to explain than a universe so stating "god did it" leaves you with the much harder problem of explaining why there is a god.

I then presented something like……….

……………. Ex….allow me to name an effect, let’s say a book. Now the cause is an author. Compare the complexities of the cause and effect, and then explain to me why what you claim above is reasonable.

And you responded with proof that supported MY refutation of your reasoning. You really did.

That system (author -> book) requires an entire universe to exist: The author is the result of a process that has been going on since the BigBang, an enormously complex process involving huge amounts of atoms in staggeringly complex combinations over billons of years.

...which agrees with what I said.
And here the best part …you concluded I was right …… that you were wrong.

And more: The author is immensly more complex than the book.

Which was my point based on the experience the humans write books. But you ………….

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.

To which I responded……….

First I like your intelligently designed reasoning and will shelf it for right now.

I agreed with you and addressed some other issues. But then this...........

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

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.

Then present your 1) and 2).

1) I have observed that humans can be authors and 2) humans give birth to humans.

I'm not sure what you are after here. I'm sure you are trying to make some point but I'm not seeing it spelled out here. I offered a counter example that you seem to agree with. But some how you think it makes me wrong even though you agree it counters your " the explanation has to be simpler than what it is explaining" criterion. So please help me out .... I'm really curious.

 

[Juma]

So please help me out .... I'm really curious.

apply the example to "universe is explained by as created by a god". Where are your 1) and 2)?

 

[DBT]

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.

There is no 'kicker' - nor is there anything desperate about scientific modelling....a model is not taken as being a fact, but a work in progress. Something that may or may not prove to be an accurate representation of how the world works.

'God' - whatever that means, nobody can agree - is not a viable explanation for the reasons I've already given. It is understandable that, given your faith in faith as a means to truth, you are unwilling to accept these reasons.

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 are wrong. Reason alone has proven to be insufficient.

Great intellectuals "reasoned" that the Earth was motionless at the centre of the Universe, that heavier objects fell faster to the earth than lighter ones, that a person's consciousnesses was located in the heart and not the brain, etc., etc. Even

Thomas Aquinas "reasoned" that angels must exist because the Universe would be "incomplete without them." While I agree with the great theologian's conclusion, his "reasoning" leaves much to be desired, and no theologian (or, at least very few) would base the existence of angels on such silliness.

Within the scientific community, "reason alone" is dead. It died with Descartes. The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment. It's not enough to have a "great idea." One has to provide testable and explanatory hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable to have any claim to objective knowledge.

Understanding objective reality requires empirical observation and testing combined with reason. The latter being based on the former. Holding a belief or having an idea is not enough, as one has to provide testable hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable.

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.

This makes no sense whatsoever. For a start, there is no ''narrowly thinking'' about how science gathers and tests information. Science in fact gathers available evidence/information about the world through various means, observation, microscopes, telescopes, particle colliders, etc, etc, in order to understand how the world works. Which has proven to be an effective means of understanding the world.

Faith on the other hand has produced an endless procession of creation myths and magical beings, countless gods and versions of God.

It is quite clear that faith is not a reliable means of sorting fact from fiction.

 

[Underseer]

I've recently got into a discussion with a friend of mine about Christianity. Long story short...

I argue that some of the claims of Christianity, like "Jesus was bodily resurrected" or "God exists" are of a different kind of reasoning than those found in Science.
A claim like "evolution is a fact" or "the earth is several billion years old" are based in a different kind of thought process than those of faith.


So do you agree that Religion is a different "kind" of thought process than Science. If so, what evidences and arguments would you make to prove that point?

Faith isn't any kind of reasoning.

Faith is accepting conclusions without evidence or even despite contrary evidence. That is pretty much the exact opposite of reason.

 

[DBT]

''A claim like "evolution is a fact" or "the earth is several billion years old" are based in a different kind of thought process than those of faith.''

Evolution and geology being based on actual evidence rather than faith, what this holy book says, or that holy book says.....quoting scripture like it was evidence that supports the beliefs that they assert.

 

[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.

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.

Yes; and I see nothing in what I just said that constitutes a loophole, irrational or otherwise; my statement is simply a precis of your argument.

But saying "Its cause was logically beyond nature" renders ANY further discussion of that cause irrational; it's like dividing by zero. Causes are a characteristic of nature; Your argument showing the logical necessity of a cause relies upon this:

The law of causality

this 'law', must, like any law, be derived from nature. To apply ANY law to something 'beyond nature' is as meaningless as division by zero; it allows one to prove anything, and therefore, to prove nothing.

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.

And therefore neither knowable, nor even subject to logic, laws, or reason. You can call the unknowable 'God' if you like; It can do ANYTHING - including not exist. But anyone who claims to know anything about it at all is either lying or delusional - it is BY DEFINITION impossible to know anything about something that is beyond nature.

Which would mean the cause of nature is beyond nature.

Concur. Which means that you have ZERO justification for making any further statements about it. Of any kind. All you can do is stick a label on it saying 'UNKNOWN'. Anything beyond that is provable, but the proof is meaningless - in the same way that, once we allow division by zero, we can prove that 1=2; If you break the rules of logic, anything goes, even Gods.

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.

No, we can't. Nature allows us to do this; but if we are 'beyond nature', then the study of nature cannot tell us anything. Analogies to nature are unreasonable and unsupported for describing things 'beyond nature'.

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.

The list of characteristics matches ANYTHING you try to match to it. You can prove ANYTHING once you allow for things 'beyond nature'.

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?

You should have read my next line:

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.

Perhaps; but not a beginning with a knowable cause; and certainly not any beginning that can reasonably be ascribed to a God (or to anything else).

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.

No. But what YOU provided does - namely the idea that the 'law of causality' applies OUTSIDE the natural universe from which all laws are derived.

The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

In the same way that the conclusion that 1 = 2 flows from the premises of this mathematical argument:

So all we have is you don’t seem to like it and that alone renders it weak.

Not at all; what we have is you are breaking the rules of logic, which renders your argument not weak, but VOID.

Either your creator is part of nature, in which case the most parsimonious creator is a simple, non-intelligent object; or it is not, in which case you cannot possibly know ANYTHING about it - including whether it even complies with the 'law of causality', which being outside of nature, it need not do.

You certainly can't justify hanging any of the popular descriptions of God on that extra-natural 'creator'.

 

[remez]

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.

There is no 'kicker' - nor is there anything desperate about scientific modelling....a model is not taken as being a fact, but a work in progress. Something that may or may not prove to be an accurate representation of how the world works.

Context here. I have challenged the science of these models elsewhere. I understand they are not complete.
Specifically here, I was challenging their use as a counter against the need for a necessary first cause. Because even if true, it still wouldn’t eliminate the need for and eternal, necessary, beyond nature cause.

'God' - whatever that means, nobody can agree -

I was simply trying to establish that the necessary explanation and first cause of the universe had to be eternal and beyond the universe. I haven’t really put much effort forward yet as to it being the Christian God. But, basically science has eliminated all other “un-agreeable” gods as unnecessary here.

- is not a viable explanation for the reasons I've already given.

I have challenged you to defend your reasons. Simply stating them does not mean they are themselves reasonable.
You have asserted some wild possibilities and not defended any of them. You have offered nothing other than your self-defeating epistemology of scientism and some undefended wildly speculative dreams for miracles to avoid a beginning.
Not even Hawkings and Vilenkin avoid the beginning.

It is understandable that, given your faith in faith as a means to truth, you are unwilling to accept these reasons.

Straw man. I have been making a case for a necessary, beyond nature, eternal, first cause. I have provided scientific evidence and reasoning that the universe began to exist. None of this was based on faith. I confessed to you from the start that I had reasons for my beliefs and would present them and challenge yours along the way. I have not left anything to faith thus far. I have challenged your reasons on their science and metaphysics. I’m inferring directly from the SBBM. My beliefs that the universe began are supported by Hawkings and Vilenkin. You are the one purposing wild imaginations without evidence.

It’s time for you to present some empirical evidence for your faith. For it takes more faith to believe in your scientific models than the ones I trust.

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 are wrong. Reason alone has proven to be insufficient.

Note the empirical evidence that I did not say reason alone.

Great intellectuals "reasoned" that the Earth was motionless at the centre of the Universe, that heavier objects fell faster to the earth than lighter ones, that a person's consciousnesses was located in the heart and not the brain, etc., etc. Even

Yes. Some bad scientific reasoning and theological reasoning has occurred. It’s our epistemic duty to fix it and move on.

Within the scientific community, "reason alone" is dead.

Just for thought ..…. Isn’t science just a specific path of reasoning? Science presupposes logic and math.

The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment.

I agree this is very important but reject it is the only way. That's why you skeptics keep conflating fantasy with beyond nature. I value the epistemological power of science. But science alone is self-defeating. Here is what I mean……
Is this statement ……………..

The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment.

…. meant to be true?
Note that it is not a scientific statement but a philosophical statement. And you meant it to be objectively true.

The only way toward objective truth is reason combined with empirical observation and experiment. It's not enough to have a "great idea."

Where is the empirical evidence for these………
Cyclic models? Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario? Imaginary Time model? Many Worlds?
Where is the empirical evidence for the inflationary era?

One has to provide testable and explanatory hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable to have any claim to objective knowledge.

Is that claim itself meant to be objective knowledge? Then….????

Understanding objective reality requires empirical observation and testing combined with reason.

Then where is the empirical evidence for the inflationary era?
It is a very serious question for the context here. Stop ignoring it.

…... For a start, there is no ''narrowly thinking'' about how science gathers and tests information. Science in fact gathers available evidence/information about the world through various means, observation, microscopes, telescopes, particle colliders, etc, etc, in order to understand how the world works. Which has proven to be an effective means of understanding the world.

Correct, but you missed my point. Again I support the epistemological power of science. I’m not speaking against science.
I did not say science was narrow thinking. I was saying its narrow thinking (self-defeating actually) to assert that science is the only way to knowledge. Juxtaposed with the notion the science can only study nature. So if nature truly began to exist, which is the prevailing inferential conclusion, then science cannot directly study the cause of nature because the cause of nature is reasonably beyond nature. The beginning of nature is the limit of science.
So ….To assert that science is the only way to knowledge is self-defeating. Therefore it cannot be true.

 

[remez]

But saying "Its cause was logically beyond nature" renders ANY further discussion of that cause irrational; it's like dividing by zero. Causes are a characteristic of nature; ……

This is precisely where our two worldviews differ. So let’s investigate.

Note first of all, your statement is not a scientific statement. It is a metaphysical statement. And yet you want us to reason it’s true.

We both recognize the incredible epistemological power of science. I just don’t see it as the only path to knowledge or even the best. Perhaps you don’t either, but you project such limitations on reality as if you do believe science is the only path to truth.

Your comment above reveals a worldview based on naturalistic materialism. I do not share that view. I understand that immaterial entities like the laws of logic do exist. You assert all is material. This is where I’m claiming the basis of your worldview needs to be defended.

Someone espousing materialism asserts that nothing is immaterial all is material. Your statement above bounds causality to the material world. I’ll agree with you the material/physical characteristics are bound by a material/physical universe. The law of causality is not a material or physical characteristic bound by a material/physical universe.

Is it your belief that one or both of these conditions is true ……… ???

1) Every physical thing requires a physical cause (material cause)
And/or
2) The law of causality only applies to physical things in space-time (efficient cause.)

Both are wrong and need a defense to hold your position.

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.

And therefore neither knowable, nor even subject to logic, laws, or reason.

Why are logic and reason subject to only nature? What exactly do you mean they’re derived from nature?

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.

No. But what YOU provided does - namely the idea that the 'law of causality' applies OUTSIDE the natural universe from which all laws are derived.

The laws of logic do not change, all physical things change. The laws of logic are fixed, eternal, immaterial laws that don’t exist in a world that is purely material. A conditional property of atheism not theism.

Now the theist reasons that the laws of logic are grounded in a mind. Not the changeable, temporal human mind, but an eternal, unchangeable immaterial mind. Thus for our context here the laws of logic are not bound to a purely material world.

So it is not anything goes if we investigate beyond the temporal material universe. The laws of logic still rule. Thus wild imaginings are still not possible if ruled out by logic. Therefore the factoring of (a-b) is on your side of the epistemological ledger. Naturalist materialism is the factoring of (a-b).

Here is the falsity of your premise. The best you can do to explain their (laws of logic) existence is illusion and from there proclaim they are magically bound to a material universe. You are the one with your feet firmly planted in midair.

Let me add here. The existence of the laws of logic and our ability to use them don’t necessarily infer the Christian God. Another theistic God might be the ground. But if Christianity is true, then the Christian God is that Mind. We haven’t reached that conclusion at this point. Only this conclusion here …. some theism explains the laws of logic, materialism cannot. Not everything can be reduced to material.

.

The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

In the same way that the conclusion that 1 = 2 flows from the premises of this mathematical argument:

I contend that it’s your materialism that contains the erroneous factoring of (a-b). My conclusion still follows logically from the premises. Yours cannot account for the immaterial laws of logic. Further …. Can you see now it isn’t anything goes? Your materialism logically fails.

 

[bilby]

This is precisely where our two worldviews differ. So let’s investigate.

Note first of all, your statement is not a scientific statement. It is a metaphysical statement. And yet you want us to reason it’s true.

We both recognize the incredible epistemological power of science. I just don’t see it as the only path to knowledge or even the best. Perhaps you don’t either, but you project such limitations on reality as if you do believe science is the only path to truth.

Your comment above reveals a worldview based on naturalistic materialism. I do not share that view. I understand that immaterial entities like the laws of logic do exist. You assert all is material. This is where I’m claiming the basis of your worldview needs to be defended.

Someone espousing materialism asserts that nothing is immaterial all is material. Your statement above bounds causality to the material world. I’ll agree with you the material/physical characteristics are bound by a material/physical universe. The law of causality is not a material or physical characteristic bound by a material/physical universe.

Is it your belief that one or both of these conditions is true ……… ???

1) Every physical thing requires a physical cause (material cause)
And/or
2) The law of causality only applies to physical things in space-time (efficient cause.)

Both are wrong and need a defense to hold your position.

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.

And therefore neither knowable, nor even subject to logic, laws, or reason.

Why are logic and reason subject to only nature? What exactly do you mean they’re derived from nature?

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.

No. But what YOU provided does - namely the idea that the 'law of causality' applies OUTSIDE the natural universe from which all laws are derived.

The laws of logic do not change, all physical things change. The laws of logic are fixed, eternal, immaterial laws that don’t exist in a world that is purely material. A conditional property of atheism not theism.

Now the theist reasons that the laws of logic are grounded in a mind. Not the changeable, temporal human mind, but an eternal, unchangeable immaterial mind. Thus for our context here the laws of logic are not bound to a purely material world.

So it is not anything goes if we investigate beyond the temporal material universe. The laws of logic still rule. Thus wild imaginings are still not possible if ruled out by logic. Therefore the factoring of (a-b) is on your side of the epistemological ledger. Naturalist materialism is the factoring of (a-b).

Here is the falsity of your premise. The best you can do to explain their (laws of logic) existence is illusion and from there proclaim they are magically bound to a material universe. You are the one with your feet firmly planted in midair.

Let me add here. The existence of the laws of logic and our ability to use them don’t necessarily infer the Christian God. Another theistic God might be the ground. But if Christianity is true, then the Christian God is that Mind. We haven’t reached that conclusion at this point. Only this conclusion here …. some theism explains the laws of logic, materialism cannot. Not everything can be reduced to material.

.

The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

In the same way that the conclusion that 1 = 2 flows from the premises of this mathematical argument:

I contend that it’s your materialism that contains the erroneous factoring of (a-b). My conclusion still follows logically from the premises. Yours cannot account for the immaterial laws of logic. Further …. Can you see now it isn’t anything goes? Your materialism logically fails.

Hang on a minute; You were arguing earlier that God is 'necessary' because any other cause for the universe leads to an infinite regress. God is therefore 'necessary' because He is outside the natural universe, so the rules that render an infinite regress a problem for non-God causes are not applicable to Him.

But now you are saying that logic is immaterial, and therefore applies to things outside, or 'before' the beginning of, the universe. That's contradictory.

I am happy to accept, for the sake of argument, that logic and the 'law of causality' applies even outside nature; or that it applies ONLY to nature. I have no particular preference for one unprovable supposition over the other. But your argument relies on BOTH being the case.

Basically, you are taking a very simple set of logical statements, and dressing them up in a VAST number of words; That may be an effective way for you to conceal the contradiction from yourself, but it's not working on me.

As I see it things boil down to one of two possibilities:

1) Something has always existed. (and the apparent beginning of the universe is merely a barrier beyond which we cannot see); or
2) Something began to exist.

We have discarded possibility 1, for the sake of argument; so we are left with 2.

If something began to exist, and given that we observe the existence of a universe, then there are two possibilities:

2a) The universe spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused the universe to begin to exist.

You reject 2a as unacceptable to your world-view; although I don't agree that it can be so simply dismissed, I am happy to accept it for now, for the sake of argument.

If 2b, then there are two further possibilities:

2b(i) The cause of the universe is something that is subject to the same rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, we must reject 2b as well - This is the infinite regress you have rejected. If we need not reject 2b, then by the same logic, we need not reject 2a either.
2b(ii) The cause of the universe is something that is NOT subject to the rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, then either:

2b(ii)x We cannot reason about the cause; the rules do not apply, so any reasoning we do cannot be relied upon. We must accept that we do not and cannot know anything about the cause of the universe; or
2b(ii)y We CAN reason about the cause, because only the rules we need for our argument apply, while those that refute our argument do not. This is the logical fallacy known as 'special pleading'; If it is permitted, then we can 'prove' anything - including the opposite of anything we prove.

There are no other possibilities; so one of 1, 2a, 2b(i) or 2b(ii)x must be true. So the possible scenarios are:

C1) Something always existed; or
C2) Something spontaneously started from nothing; or
C3) Something started to exist due to something else that already existed; or
C4) We cannot sensibly discuss ultimate origins at all, as the tools of logic and reason don't apply to this topic.

If C1, there is no need for a God; we can as easily say that a non-God universe has existed eternally as we can say that God has done the same.
If C2, again there is no need for God; we can as easily say that a non-God universe spontaneously began to exist as we can say that God has done the same.
If C3, we have an infinite regress. Adding 'God' does nothing to resolve that infinite regress, unless we indulge in special pleading.
and if C4, we know nothing about origins, and there is no evidence for God any more than there is for anything else.

There's no room here for a God, unless we define the word 'God' in such trivial terms as to render the word meaningless.

The only opening for a God here is special pleading; If you allow special pleading than anything (and its opposite) is equally possible, and we cannot know anything. 'Faith' in this context is revealed to be merely another way to describe the Special Pleading fallacy. It's not a 'different kind of reasoning', it is the absence of reason.

Note that I am NOT saying that I know the right answer; I have just demonstrated that there is no way to determine the right answer. I don't know; but I DO know that YOU don't know either - which tells me that your tales of Gods or whatever other crazy stuff your faith entails are just pure fantasy. Your God is no more real than any other fictional character; nor is assuming his existence any more helpful in understanding reality.

What would the Incredible Hulk do?

 

[DBT]

Is that claim itself meant to be objective knowledge? Then….????

Yes it is. Reason alone has proven to be an insufficient means of sorting fact from fiction in practice. Geocentricism, the world is incomplete without Angels, etc, etc.

It is a very serious question for the context here. Stop ignoring it.

I haven't ignored it. It is you who tends to ignore explanations that are given by me and others.

Inflation as a working model has neither been confirmed or disproven to date. It is a model used to explain certain characteristics of an expanding universe, an expanding universe says nothing about the existence of a creator.

An unknown, unknowable, non detectable, non testable entity - God (whatever that means) is not a reasonable explanatory model for the reasons I've already given.

The beginning of nature is the limit of science.

Again, it is not known whether time had a beginning. Whether our 'universe' is a part of a multiverse, or cyclic or the result of a quantum fluctuation, or something else entirely.

So it's not a valid argument to say ''we do not know, therefore God'' - which is essentially what you are doing. The God of the Gaps.

We don't know how the universe came about, or even if it did, whether it is cyclic, or a part of a larger system.

That is the logically correct position: we do have that information. We do not know.

God (whatever that is supposed to mean) as a solution to what is essentially a self sustaining natural system appears far more fantastic than the problem of its existence and any question of its origin.

So ….To assert that science is the only way to knowledge is self-defeating. Therefore it cannot be true.

Science is observation and acquiring information. Observation is the only means of acquiring information.

Science entails examining and testing in order to acquire information. Without observing, acquiring information, examining and testing, how do you acquire knowledge?

Can you describe another way, a better way?

 

[remez]

I truly appreciated your thoughtfully constructed post. However I disagree that your conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Here is where I see the confusion starting, the hidden zero ……

You were arguing earlier that God is 'necessary' because any other cause for the universe leads to an infinite regress.

I don’t know where I said that earlier, without the context issue of eternality.
This is the concept. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
So it is proper to reason that a necessary entity requires the characteristic of eternality or else it would be contingent.
God is an entity that has that characteristic of eternality. If it is not eternal then it is contingent, to be necessary it has to be eternal.
So………

God is therefore 'necessary' because He is outside the natural universe, so the rules that render an infinite regress a problem for non-God causes are not applicable to Him.

Your “because” from my perspective would be ….. because He is eternal,
So to continue …..from my perspective …… so the rules (logic) that renders an infinite regress a problem for contingent causes would not be a problem for an entity that is eternal and uncaused. Note I said “would not be a problem” I didn’t say “are not applicable.”

But now you are saying that logic is immaterial, and therefore applies to things outside, or 'before' the beginning of, the universe. That's contradictory.

Logic is an eternal entity also. What is contradictory?

I am happy to accept, for the sake of argument, that logic and the 'law of causality' applies even outside nature; or that it applies ONLY to nature. I have no particular preference for one unprovable supposition over the other. But your argument relies on BOTH being the case.

Yes it does.

Basically, you are taking a very simple set of logical statements, and dressing them up in a VAST number of words; That may be an effective way for you to conceal the contradiction from yourself, but it's not working on me.

No. I don’t think you ever completely understood the argument. It appears you did not understand that the laws of logic are necessary and to be necessary logically means to be eternal. If something is eternal in cannot not exist, hence it is necessary.

1) Something has always existed. (and the apparent beginning of the universe is merely a barrier beyond which we cannot see); or
2) Something began to exist.

We have discarded possibility 1, for the sake of argument; so we are left with 2.

If something began to exist, and given that we observe the existence of a universe, then there are two possibilities:

I conditionally agree. I believe you’re speaking of the universe only here. If not than 1 and 2 are true.

2a) The universe spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused the universe to begin to exist.

You reject 2a as unacceptable to your world-view; although I don't agree that it can be so simply dismissed, I am happy to accept it for now, for the sake of argument.

If 2b, then there are two further possibilities:

2a) is worse than magic. Something creating itself out of nothing. I don’t see how you can consider that reasonable and a theistic postion unreasonable. That would require more faith than this theist has.
2b) has to be. This is not a question.

If 2b, then there are two further possibilities:

2b(i) The cause of the universe is something that is subject to the same rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, we must reject 2b as well - This is the infinite regress you have rejected. If we need not reject 2b, then by the same logic, we need not reject 2a either.
2b(ii) The cause of the universe is something that is NOT subject to the rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, then either:

Here is the factoring of (a-b). Your logic in 2b(i) represents a misunderstanding of the theistic position.
You have created a categorical fallacy or straw man fallacy here, your pick. Your rule (logic) of rejection is not the real rule of rejection.
The rejection of 2a has nothing to do with an infinite regress, but is still governed by necessary logic.
2a is rejected because it’s logically impossible. Like trying two draw a one ended stick. Something that began to exist can’t cause itself to exist. If that is not impossible enough you have to add …. Out of nothing. Now it’s doubly impossible.
Thus 2a is logically impossible
2b is almost certain to be.
So …………

There are no other possibilities; so one of 1, 2a, 2b(i) or 2b(ii)x must be true.

Sorry your reasoning from the premises to your conclusion is in error at 2b(i). Thus your argument is invalid. And the statements following your conclusion remain unsupported by your argument.

 

[remez]

One has to provide testable and explanatory hypotheses that are both verifiable and falsifiable to have any claim to objective knowledge.

Is that claim itself meant to be objective knowledge? Then….????

Yes it is. Reason alone has proven to be an insufficient means of sorting fact from fiction in practice. Geocentricism, the world is incomplete without Angels, etc, etc.

I concede that people have had wrong ideas, both philosophical and scientific. Good philosophy and science have rooted out most of the bad. Your point really doesn’t say anything. Perhaps you think science is always right and saves the day ???
Geocentrism? Are you claiming that wasn’t a scientific belief?
Angels? How would science provide knowledge on that issue?

Also note that your point here is that science is better than reasoning. But your point is a point of reasoning and not a point of science. You have no empirical evidence to support your reasoning. Your provided examples fall sort as evidence because you ignore the obvious counter examples. See there is a philosophical moral presupposition to science. Cherry picking the data is not allowed.

It is a very serious question for the context here. Stop ignoring it.

I haven't ignored it. It is you who tends to ignore explanations that are given by me and others.

Inflation as a working model has neither been confirmed or disproven to date. It is a model used to explain certain characteristics of an expanding universe,

My point here is that this model is most reasonably true even though the empirical evidence exists beyond our observation. This model is used as working knowledge to build upon. That’s where the evidence leads. I have discussed this (inflationary era) with many skeptics and none of them deny the plausibility of such knowledge. Yet when we parallel the rationality of the universe having a beginning, the skeptics (particularly the atheists) are all too fast to deny because they claim the science is uncertain by some unreasonably minuscule reason. Stay consistent. Are you going to reasonably follow where the evidence leads or not. Be consistent.

So the arguments of contingency and first cause are supported by scientific and philosophical reasoning and reasonably lead to the biblical God. Now you have denied that on the grounds of inconsistent reasoning (ex. last paragraph) and the failed self-defeating epistemology of weak scientism.

an expanding universe says nothing about the existence of a creator.

It scientifically supports a premise in an argument the validly concludes the biblical God exists. Again you may deny the conclusion, but to do so, with your provided reasoning, exposes your position as less reasonable.

Again, it is not known whether time had a beginning. Whether our 'universe' is a part of a multiverse, or cyclic or the result of a quantum fluctuation, or something else entirely.

Again what is by far the most reasonable position to hold? We don’t have observable evidence for the inflationary era, but it is near certain to have occurred. The SBBM strongly inferred that our universe began. All time and material came into being at that point. That is reasonable knowledge that is not denied by many atheistic scientists. However your purposed models do next to nothing to advance knowledge here, but for the fact they are strengthening the SBBM with every failure. I fully predict these models will continue to come into existence and fail to make the universe eternal, part of some eternal material environment or create itself. Most plausibly the universe (all space and time) had a beginning. Thus reason demands an external explanation and cause.

Also note …. Again your “something else” entirely pleads, no screams for a natural cause. A nature of the gaps.

So it's not a valid argument to say ''we do not know, therefore God'' - which is essentially what you are doing. The God of the Gaps.

Precisely the opposite. I’m purporting the science directly infers a beginning of nature. And you won’t find many scientists that reasonably disagree. So where is the gap? The gap is one of your epistemological creations. You don’t know precisely “HOW” it began so you deny the obvious conclusion “THAT” it did begin with your idk inconsistency. Thus creating a gap.

You are the one unreasonably pleading that this gap (the beginning of the universe) must have natural cause when I‘m purporting the science and philosophy lead to a cause beyond nature, no gap. Sagan rightfully challenged us to follow the evidence wherever it leads. His challenge was great his assumptions were completely incorrect.

God (whatever that is supposed to mean) as a solution to what is essentially a self sustaining natural system appears far more fantastic than the problem of its existence and any question of its origin.

But our best scientific understanding indicates all matter and time had a finite past. Therefore its explanation is external to itself and it is an effect that needs a cause from beyond itself.

Again you seem to be inferring that if it is not natural it has to be fantasy. That is a false dilemma.
More specifically …………

……. to what is essentially a self sustaining natural system ….

The universe is …… according to you ……. a self-sustaining natural system. That stands against the science we know. So if that is your basis to reject the contingency and first-cause arguments then your rejection is not based on the good science or good philosophy. More of a blind faith really. Because you really have to close your eyes and ignore the evidence.

Science is observation and acquiring information.

Absolutely true and I love science. But note your statement is not scientific. Thus not all knowledge and truth have their source in science. Philosophy prevails. Science presupposes reason, laws of logic, morality, math, truth, uniformity in nature and induction etc. Science is a philosophical structure of investigation and reasoning. Think about it. Really isn’t science a philosophical structure?

Can you describe another way, a better way?

Absolutely.
Philosophy. I can’t say it better than John Kekes … so ….

A successful argument for science being the paradigm of rationality must be based on the demonstration that the presuppositions of science are preferable to other presuppositions. That demonstration requires showing that science, relying on these presuppositions, is better at solving some problems and achieving some ideals than its competitors. But showing that cannot be the task of science. It is, in fact, one task of philosophy. Thus the enterprise of justifying the presuppositions of science by showing that with their help science is the best way of solving certain problems and achieving some ideals is a necessary precondition of the justification of science. Hence philosophy, and not science, is a stronger candidate for being the very paradigm of rationality.

Before you object with a list of bad philosophies, I concede their existence. I do however make these two points:
1) bad sciences have in the same way existed
2) we have epistemological procedures in place to sort them out.
And have for the most part. But this scientism seems to be quite resistant to reason.
As I’m sure you will agree, it’s a reasonable challenge helping people see their own blind faith.

 

[bilby]

I truly appreciated your thoughtfully constructed post. However I disagree that your conclusion logically follows from the premises.
Here is where I see the confusion starting, the hidden zero ……

I don’t know where I said that earlier, without the context issue of eternality.
This is the concept. Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
So it is proper to reason that a necessary entity requires the characteristic of eternality or else it would be contingent.
God is an entity that has that characteristic of eternality. If it is not eternal then it is contingent, to be necessary it has to be eternal.
So………

God is therefore 'necessary' because He is outside the natural universe, so the rules that render an infinite regress a problem for non-God causes are not applicable to Him.

Your “because” from my perspective would be ….. because He is eternal,
So to continue …..from my perspective …… so the rules (logic) that renders an infinite regress a problem for contingent causes would not be a problem for an entity that is eternal and uncaused. Note I said “would not be a problem” I didn’t say “are not applicable.”

But now you are saying that logic is immaterial, and therefore applies to things outside, or 'before' the beginning of, the universe. That's contradictory.

Logic is an eternal entity also. What is contradictory?

I am happy to accept, for the sake of argument, that logic and the 'law of causality' applies even outside nature; or that it applies ONLY to nature. I have no particular preference for one unprovable supposition over the other. But your argument relies on BOTH being the case.

Yes it does.

Basically, you are taking a very simple set of logical statements, and dressing them up in a VAST number of words; That may be an effective way for you to conceal the contradiction from yourself, but it's not working on me.

No. I don’t think you ever completely understood the argument. It appears you did not understand that the laws of logic are necessary and to be necessary logically means to be eternal. If something is eternal in cannot not exist, hence it is necessary.

1) Something has always existed. (and the apparent beginning of the universe is merely a barrier beyond which we cannot see); or
2) Something began to exist.

We have discarded possibility 1, for the sake of argument; so we are left with 2.

If something began to exist, and given that we observe the existence of a universe, then there are two possibilities:

I conditionally agree. I believe you’re speaking of the universe only here. If not than 1 and 2 are true.

2a) The universe spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused the universe to begin to exist.

You reject 2a as unacceptable to your world-view; although I don't agree that it can be so simply dismissed, I am happy to accept it for now, for the sake of argument.

If 2b, then there are two further possibilities:

2a) is worse than magic. Something creating itself out of nothing. I don’t see how you can consider that reasonable and a theistic postion unreasonable. That would require more faith than this theist has.
2b) has to be. This is not a question.

If 2b, then there are two further possibilities:

2b(i) The cause of the universe is something that is subject to the same rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, we must reject 2b as well - This is the infinite regress you have rejected. If we need not reject 2b, then by the same logic, we need not reject 2a either.
2b(ii) The cause of the universe is something that is NOT subject to the rules that led us to reject proposition 2a. If so, then either:

Here is the factoring of (a-b). Your logic in 2b(i) represents a misunderstanding of the theistic position.
You have created a categorical fallacy or straw man fallacy here, your pick. Your rule (logic) of rejection is not the real rule of rejection.
The rejection of 2a has nothing to do with an infinite regress, but is still governed by necessary logic.
2a is rejected because it’s logically impossible. Like trying two draw a one ended stick. Something that began to exist can’t cause itself to exist. If that is not impossible enough you have to add …. Out of nothing. Now it’s doubly impossible.
Thus 2a is logically impossible

So either the universe or your God is eternal. Of these two entities, one is evidenced; why surmise the existence of the other?

You seem to have missed that the reason for rejecting 2a is unimportant; If we need not reject 2b, then by the same logic, we need not reject 2a either.

Infinite regress is an example of such a reason; but it doesn't matter to my logic what reason you plug in - it has to apply to BOTH cases, because anything else is special pleading.

2b is almost certain to be.
So …………

There are no other possibilities; so one of 1, 2a, 2b(i) or 2b(ii)x must be true.

Sorry your reasoning from the premises to your conclusion is in error at 2b(i). Thus your argument is invalid. And the statements following your conclusion remain unsupported by your argument.

So special pleading it is then.

You have shown to your own satisfaction that something has always existed; and have then also convinced yourself that eternality is impossible; and your solution to this impasse is to declare that the arguments you have made are not applicable to your God.

Your God is something, except where it is necessary for your argument to declare that your God is not something.

The only reasonable conclusion from this is that you are terrified by the fact that you cannot know the answer to the question 'is anything eternal, or did something begin spontaneously', so you have made up an answer to cover your fear.

That's understandable, but not laudable.

The bit you miss is that if something can be eternal, and if anything that is eternal is therefore necessary, then there is no reason not to simply declare the universe to be necessary and be done with it.

Adding a God is needless. Anything will do as an uncaused cause. It needn't be a God. And that's if an uncaused cause is even necessary. Which it is only if your unsupported assertion that spontaneous existence of anything other than Gods is impossible is correct - and there is no reason to accept that it is.

What you are comfortable imagining is NOT a good guide to what is or is not real.

 

[Juma]

Why are you ignoring my post? (#144)

 

[DBT]

I concede that people have had wrong ideas, both philosophical and scientific. Good philosophy and science have rooted out most of the bad. Your point really doesn’t say anything. Perhaps you think science is always right and saves the day ???

You leap about making this or that assumption about what I said instead of grasping what I said about science.

Geocentrism? Are you claiming that wasn’t a scientific belief?

It was an assumption based on religious beliefs, the earth being created by God as the centre of the Universe, and appearances. The sun, moon and stares appear to revolve around the earth.


Which was corrected by science, but resisted by the Church...

Angels? How would science provide knowledge on that issue?

You need to read more carefully....I gave an example of a religious conclusion based on religious assumptions and not science or scientific testing.

Also note that your point here is that science is better than reasoning. But your point is a point of reasoning and not a point of science. You have no empirical evidence to support your reasoning.

Considering your replies, I doubt that you have understand what I've said so far. Or perhaps you don't want to.

Your game appears to entail ignoring key points and misrepresenting whatever you can in order to maintain your position.

Your provided examples fall sort as evidence because you ignore the obvious counter examples. See there is a philosophical moral presupposition to science. Cherry picking the data is not allowed.

Of course you fail to see the irony.

There is nothing in the evidence for expansion/inflation to suggest agency by a 'god' - whatever that is - or special creation.

Barring theists with an axe to grind, eager to validate their beliefs, who is even suggesting that god as an explanation is required? Or that this solves the question of existence. God did it, ho ho, now we know.

My point here is that this model is most reasonably true even though the empirical evidence exists beyond our observation. This model is used as working knowledge to build upon. That’s where the evidence leads. I have discussed this (inflationary era) with many skeptics and none of them deny the plausibility of such knowledge. Yet when we parallel the rationality of the universe having a beginning, the skeptics (particularly the atheists) are all too fast to deny because they claim the science is uncertain by some unreasonably minuscule reason. Stay consistent. Are you going to reasonably follow where the evidence leads or not. Be consistent.

So the arguments of contingency and first cause are supported by scientific and philosophical reasoning and reasonably lead to the biblical God. Now you have denied that on the grounds of inconsistent reasoning (ex. last paragraph) and the failed self-defeating epistemology of weak scientism.

The weak part is associating inflation with creation. The evidence for inflation is nothing more than evidence that inflation is a viable model.

You can't infer anything more than that. You can't say; inflation therefore God. There is no link between inflation and God (whatever that is).

There is no necessary link between inflation and a beginning to time.

There is no necessary link between complexity and a creator. The evidence for complexity says nothing about the presence or work of a creator. In fact the evidence supports natural evolution based on the characteristics of matter/energy, from which complexity emerged.

Precisely the opposite. I’m purporting the science directly infers a beginning of nature. And you won’t find many scientists that reasonably disagree. So where is the gap? The gap is one of your epistemological creations. You don’t know precisely “HOW” it began so you deny the obvious conclusion “THAT” it did begin with your idk inconsistency. Thus creating a gap.

The prevailing position in science is that it is not known whether time had a beginning. The universe formed approximately 13 billion years ago, but this says nothing whatsoever about a creator. It's not implied. There is no evidence that points to special creation. The evidence for a beginning to the universe is simply evidence for a beginning....not for how it began or why it began.

The nature of the beginning is unknown. You can't say that God did it. We can't even say that it was the absolute beginning (rather than cyclic) or anything else. It is unknown.

To claim that the universe has to be created because it had a beginning is built on false assumptions.

Your argument is built on false assumptions.

 

[atrib]

My point here is that this model is most reasonably true even though the empirical evidence exists beyond our observation. This model is used as working knowledge to build upon. That’s where the evidence leads. I have discussed this (inflationary era) with many skeptics and none of them deny the plausibility of such knowledge. Yet when we parallel the rationality of the universe having a beginning, the skeptics (particularly the atheists) are all too fast to deny because they claim the science is uncertain by some unreasonably minuscule reason. Stay consistent. Are you going to reasonably follow where the evidence leads or not. Be consistent.

I think we are all willing to follow the evidence to wherever it leads. However, thus far,
1. you have not provided evidence of the universe having a beginning from no preexisting matter/energy,
2. you have not provided evidence that an expanding universe points to a sentient supernatural creator, much less your preferred supercreature, the Biblical god
3. you have not demonstrated that the concept of an eternal cycling universe, or a universe created by the periodic collisions of membranes in a dimension we are not aware of, cannot possibly be true.

Feel free to provide the evidence at any time.

an expanding universe says nothing about the existence of a creator.

It scientifically supports a premise in an argument the validly concludes the biblical God exists. Again you may deny the conclusion, but to do so, with your provided reasoning, exposes your position as less reasonable.

Again, it is not known whether time had a beginning. Whether our 'universe' is a part of a multiverse, or cyclic or the result of a quantum fluctuation, or something else entirely.

Again what is by far the most reasonable position to hold? We don’t have observable evidence for the inflationary era, but it is near certain to have occurred. The SBBM strongly inferred that our universe began. All time and material came into being at that point. That is reasonable knowledge that is not denied by many atheistic scientists. However your purposed models do next to nothing to advance knowledge here, but for the fact they are strengthening the SBBM with every failure. I fully predict these models will continue to come into existence and fail to make the universe eternal, part of some eternal material environment or create itself. Most plausibly the universe (all space and time) had a beginning. Thus reason demands an external explanation and cause.

And nothing you have posted here supports your assertion that the supernatural entity described in the Bible is a plausible explanation. I wonder why.

You claim that the universe had a beginning, as opposed to being a system of matter/energy that cycles through various states, of which we are only aware of one, the reality we find ourselves in. If you claim that no matter/energy had existed prior to the beginning of this current state, you imply that this supernatural creator was able to magically create the matter/energy from nothing. If, on the other hand, this matter and energy was already in existence, and simply changed its state to give rise to our visible universe, then the creator becomes unnecessary. So which is it? Did this matter/energy already exist, or are you going to demonstrate that your favorite supernatural creator was able to poof it all up by magic. Remember that you have claimed that nothing can come from nothing, which would mean even a supernatural supercreator would not be able to produce matter/energy from nothing.

So, a lot of words, but very little evidence. This is not surprising.

 

[remez]

So either the universe or your God is eternal. Of these two entities, one is evidenced; why surmise the existence of the other?

Eternal? God is by definition eternal. The universe is evidenced not to be eternal even though some still desperately cling to the notion.
Assuming you mean the universe is evidenced and God is not.
The universe is evidenced …. meaning we have evidence it exists ….then I agree.
God is not evidenced …… meaning the universe cannot evidence a theistic God….. then I disagree.
Why surmise? Because the universe needs a cause.

You seem to have missed that the reason for rejecting 2a is unimportant; If we need not reject 2b, then by the same logic, we need not reject 2a either.

Infinite regress is an example of such a reason; but it doesn't matter to my logic what reason you plug in - it has to apply to BOTH cases, because anything else is special pleading.

Of course the reason matters and of course the necessary logic applies to both cases. Are ………

2a) The universe spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused the universe to begin to exist.

…. even logically possible????
2a) no 2b) yes.
I don’t understand your charge of special pleading?
You provided the two choices.
One is magic the other is the law of causality itself.
Which is the rational choice?

 

[remez]

Why are you ignoring my post? (#144)

Sorry I know I responded to that post. I must have hit preview instead of submit before I hurriedly signed out. I apologize for not being careful on that account. It has happened to me before trying to quickly construct a response.

So please help me out .... I'm really curious.

apply the example to "universe is explained by as created by a god". Where are your 1) and 2)?

Book is contingent
Author is contingent
Universe is contingent
Biblical God is necessary.

First I thought your objection was solely based on inability of something complex to explain something simple. For which I provided the counter example of author to book. I now understand that your objection to my counter came from a different direction.

You objected that the author to book explanation fails not because of complex to simple but that authors have to have an explanation themselves. Which I do agree with. Because authors are contingent. The universe is contingent and not necessary therefore its explanation must be an external cause. The Biblical God is necessary and not contingent, therefore the explanation of the Biblical God is that he exists by the necessity of his own nature. He cannot not exist. He is eternal, has always existed, has the power of being within himself, he is the self-existing uncaused eternal, beyond nature, first cause.

So we do have two different issues here.

Issue 1. An infinite regress. Your objection that we need to know the explanation of an explanation before it can be consider an explanation. Your objection fails two ways. First using that epistemology would lead to an infinite regress which renders all unexplained. And secondly, it’s patently invalid, as any first year undergrad should be able to tell you …. ie ….. Evolution by natural selection can be dismissed because it cannot explain why there is life on earth in the first place.

Issue 2 Which is premise one of the argument from contingency. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
Why is there anything at all?
Consider this …. If there ever was a state when nothing existed then there would still be nothing today. Since nothing comes from nothing.

Observe something does exist. Which means that something has to exist eternally. Something has to be the necessary, uncaused first cause. That eternal entity must not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever. The eternal entity must therefore be non-physical and non-material.

What necessary things exist that could be the cause of the universe.
Numbers, sets, functions, the conceptual laws of logic, objective morality, theistic God?
Abstract entities do not stand in causal relationships thus leaving only the theistic God as the necessary first cause.
Concluding issue two as a theistic God is necessary.