Different Kinds of Reasoning - Scientific Method vs Faith

[remez]

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.

I could charge you the same. I recognize that communicating in this fashion can create misunderstandings. Thus why I ask a lot of questions. I want to understand your position and to challenge it where we are not in accord. For example I didn’t ignore or misrepresent …..

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...

I understood that you were saying that geocentricism was popularly held by the church and reluctantly let go and science saved the day. However, to claim the science was based on a church assumption is weak. I could easily envision the church using bad science to support their position. Do you really know which is the case and do you have any evidence this is the case.

My response was focused on the overt one sidedness of your perception and interpretation. I readily admit, the church was wrong with their interpretation. But you can’t ignore the fact that science for centuries believed it to be true as well. The main character in that drama was trying to correct both camps and was a member of both camps. That alters the force of your point and what I was referring to as cherry picking. Also, to fit that same charge, you ignored these obvious counters……

Consider scientific assumptions that the universe was eternal vs theist assertions the universe was finite. Or the theistic assertion that time actually began with the universe which was not the prevailing thought of science. Theism triumphed over science? Triumph no, reached a proper epistemological conclusion …yes.

Personal reflection. I find the best epistemological path to take is to properly integrate the two. I personally struggled as a theistic teen facing YEC. I sided with the science and adjusted my theistic beliefs. It was a completely easy compromise. That adjustment did not affect the orthodoxy of my beliefs and therefore was an easy adjustment to make. Back then I didn’t have the research resources I have today. I’m happy to now have my beliefs confirmed by many from within theism.

I did not ignore or misrepresent your view. I directly confronted them. It was you that did not understand my call for you to be balanced in your assessment.

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

Yes I got that. But I still ask how can science determine this one way or another? Obviously the theist was referring to the universe being complete in a theistic context. He was not saying it was scientifically incomplete. There exists a doctrine on angels and demons within theism. This was what was being addressed not the scientific completeness of the universe. How could science address this?

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

Go back and carefully read what we posted…………………..

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 here is what I was speaking to…

Premise 1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2 the universe began to exist.
Conclusion the universe has a cause.

So more specifically expansion/inflation (SBBM) SUPPORTS the PREMISE that the universe began to exist. That is all I said the evidence does. From there the argument proceeds to conclude that the universe has a cause. The science support premise two. SBBM does not say there is a creator and I did not say it said so. I have flamed the straw man several times now.

Again science supports the premise in a valid argument that concludes there is a cause. From an examination of the characteristics that the cause would have to possess to cause this universe we can conclude it is a theistic God. This isn’t a one-liner drive-by conclusion. The theistic cause is found at the end of a valid inferential trail that has scientific support along the way. If the science didn’t support theism I would have a very hard time believing it to be true.

More specifically the issue of “agency” occurs when we are examining the juxtaposition of the needed characteristics of the cause with the characteristics of a theistic God. We weren’t there yet. I was just trying to defend the science supports premise two which is not addressing agency.

You keep resurrecting this straw man fallacy. We have addressed this before. Are you intentionally being obscure, simply don’t understand the argument or how an argument works? You keep saying, that I’m saying something I’m not.

Barring theists with an axe to grind, eager to validate their beliefs, who is even suggesting that god as an explanation is required?

Are you asserting that a theistic argument is worthless because non-theists are not suggesting that God is a valid explanation?

Missing your point here.

Let’s see what that sounds like with the roles reversed……

Barring atheists with an axe to grind, eager to validate their beliefs, who is even suggesting that god as an explanation is not required? Or that this solves the question of existence. God didn’t do it ho ho, now we know the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

Atheists have no right to defend their beliefs if theists are not also suggesting the same.

I really don’t think that is what you meant. So please clarify.

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).

Straw man. I did not say it directly inferred creation. It directly infers the universe has a finite past. This is a multistep proof. You can’t logically jump to the conclusion skipping all the logic in between. That would be a straw man. Purposely misrepresenting your opponent's view to make your case. Do you remember geometry proofs? Can you rationally jump from a single given to the conclusion?

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.

Where did that come from? Are you confusing contingency and complexity? Are you addressing the TA (teleological argument?) If so, that is the first mention of it here in the thread and you appear to be challenging something I never said.
But even so…… what was the cause of matter and energy?

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,

I’m fine with you playing Ostridge here for it does not hurt the argument. This truly requires a self blinding faith on your part.

but this says nothing whatsoever about a creator.

Straw man.

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.

There is evidence……. that supports a premise…….. in an argument……. the validly concludes ……the existence of a theistic God.

Until you can prove one of the premises false or show that the conclusion does not validly follow from the premises then you have failed to defeat the argument. Your consistent straw man attempts to jump from a single premise, over the argument, to the conclusion without considering the rest of the inferential trail does not challenge the validity of the conclusion following from the premises.

The nature of the beginning is unknown. You can't say that God did it.

Straw man. Specifically jumps the premise to conclusion without examining the logic of the argument.

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

I fine with your Ostridge approach here.

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

It’s not a claim it is an argument.

Your argument is built on false assumptions.

You have not exposed any. Again….

Premise 1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2 the universe began to exist.
Conclusion the universe has a cause.

We have debated premise 2 no doubt. But all you have to assert against premise 2 is your Ostridge approach. You can have it. I will side with the best scientific theories and their direct implications. I will consistently follow the evidence where it leads and not play Ostridge where is suits me. You can deny the implications of the science if you choose to. But that does not make premise 2 a false assumption.

See that is the power of an airtight argument. You can deny it, throw false charges against it, but the cost is the validity of your own reasoning.

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

 

[remez]

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.

Much of what you are demanding here was addressed in my last post to you that you did not respond to. So please redress that post in the context of this new one of yours and I will eagerly continue. Here it is again……………

We don't know. What we do know is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 13.5 BYA.

You don’t know what?
What you do know (the universe began) is the EVIDENCE I claim is best explained by theism. The how is not the evidence I’m addressing here?

What we do know is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 13.5 BYA. The universe may be eternal, going through cycles of expansion and contraction.

I was scolded by you to bone up on cosmology. I suggest you should start with some basic reasoning skills. Examine what you wrote. How can a universe that begins to exist be eternal? Also, I have addressed the oscillating models several times in this thread.

It may also be self created, popping out of nothing.

The quantum vacuum is not nothing. If that is not the equivocation you were attempting there then defend your illogical assertion that something can come from nothing. Also not knowing a cause does not mean it’s self-created? That logically incorrect at two different levels.

. It may have been created by the collision of membranes, or within a black hole in a dimension we cannot perceive, as some current mathematical models appear to predict.

By all means continue your investigations. They are of interest to me as well. But we are asking, with what we have before us, what is the BEST explanation. Those suggestions are faith based without evidence with the added flavor of self-creation. It’s stuff like that, that lead to the phrase “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” Where is your evidence for the metaphysical entities?

There is no evidence to support the assertion of a religious text that claims a supernatural god created the universe, then cloned himself as a human after 13.5 billion years, and had his clone killed to appease his own bloodlust, then resurrected the clone and had him flown up to heaven, when so much of the text in said document is wrong about its depiction of reality.

That was a straw man fallacy, so silly in fact, it would be equivalent to me challenging the validity of evolution due to the observance that there are still monkeys around.

. And if you argue that universes cannot self create or that the universe is not eternal, then you would need to demonstrate how a god could do the same.

The universe had a beginning.
Logic stands in the way of self-creation.
The Biblical God is eternal and did not begin to exist, therefore did not have a cause.

. We DON'T KNOW about the origins of the universe.

You keep saying we don’t know. But there are TWO points of Knowledge there to be known.
One we know, the universe began.
The other we don’t, the mechanistic HOW?
It is the part we do know that I submit as evidence.
It’s the part we don’t know that you illogically use to suppress the part we do know.
It is dishonest for you to continue suppress the evidence that the universe had a beginning with categorical switch that we don’t know the mechanistic HOW.
You hide in the ignorance of the how to suppress the evidence we do know.

By the way, we are still waiting for you to provide evidence that an expanding universe supports a monotheistic god. Now would be a good time to provide it.[/B]

No need to wait………here it is again

The EVIDENCE is the universe had a beginning.
The alternative explanations.
P) Continue to believe the universe is eternal.
A) Believe in self creation.
T) Someone created the universe.
Which explanation best explains the EVIDENCE?

Because of the three alternatives two are completely irrational.

 

[atrib]

Much of what you are demanding here was addressed in my last post to you that you did not respond to. So please redress that post in the context of this new one of yours and I will eagerly continue. Here it is again……………

We don't know. What we do know is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 13.5 BYA.

You don’t know what?
What you do know (the universe began) is the EVIDENCE I claim is best explained by theism. The how is not the evidence I’m addressing here?

What we do know is that the universe began to exist in its present form about 13.5 BYA. The universe may be eternal, going through cycles of expansion and contraction.

I was scolded by you to bone up on cosmology. I suggest you should start with some basic reasoning skills. Examine what you wrote. How can a universe that begins to exist be eternal? Also, I have addressed the oscillating models several times in this thread.

It may also be self created, popping out of nothing.

The quantum vacuum is not nothing. If that is not the equivocation you were attempting there then defend your illogical assertion that something can come from nothing. Also not knowing a cause does not mean it’s self-created? That logically incorrect at two different levels.

. It may have been created by the collision of membranes, or within a black hole in a dimension we cannot perceive, as some current mathematical models appear to predict.

By all means continue your investigations. They are of interest to me as well. But we are asking, with what we have before us, what is the BEST explanation. Those suggestions are faith based without evidence with the added flavor of self-creation. It’s stuff like that, that lead to the phrase “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.” Where is your evidence for the metaphysical entities?

There is no evidence to support the assertion of a religious text that claims a supernatural god created the universe, then cloned himself as a human after 13.5 billion years, and had his clone killed to appease his own bloodlust, then resurrected the clone and had him flown up to heaven, when so much of the text in said document is wrong about its depiction of reality.

That was a straw man fallacy, so silly in fact, it would be equivalent to me challenging the validity of evolution due to the observance that there are still monkeys around.

. And if you argue that universes cannot self create or that the universe is not eternal, then you would need to demonstrate how a god could do the same.

The universe had a beginning.
Logic stands in the way of self-creation.
The Biblical God is eternal and did not begin to exist, therefore did not have a cause.

. We DON'T KNOW about the origins of the universe.

You keep saying we don’t know. But there are TWO points of Knowledge there to be known.
One we know, the universe began.
The other we don’t, the mechanistic HOW?
It is the part we do know that I submit as evidence.
It’s the part we don’t know that you illogically use to suppress the part we do know.
It is dishonest for you to continue suppress the evidence that the universe had a beginning with categorical switch that we don’t know the mechanistic HOW.
You hide in the ignorance of the how to suppress the evidence we do know.

By the way, we are still waiting for you to provide evidence that an expanding universe supports a monotheistic god. Now would be a good time to provide it.[/B]

No need to wait………here it is again

The EVIDENCE is the universe had a beginning.
The alternative explanations.
P) Continue to believe the universe is eternal.
A) Believe in self creation.
T) Someone created the universe.
Which explanation best explains the EVIDENCE?

Because of the three alternatives two are completely irrational.

All we have established at this point to some degree of certainty is that the visible universe began to exist in its present state about 13.7 BYA. This does not mean that that the stuff (matter and energy) that constitutes our visible universe did not exist in some form prior to this time. You keep dancing around this fact.

But lets move on for now and address another part of my last post you did not touch.

Remez: Something cannot come from nothing

Observation: Something, this visible universe, exists

This leads us to the following two options:

1. Something can come from nothing, and your premise is false
2. Something cannot come from nothing, and your premise is true.

If (1) is true, then a supernatural creator is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.

If (2) is true, a supernatural creator could not have created this universe out of nothing, because something cannot come from nothing. Therefore, the stuff that makes up our visible universe has always existed, and a supernatural creator is not necessary to explain its existence.

So yes, while it is hypothetically possible that a sentient supernatural creator created this universe, there are potentially an infinite number of other causes by which this visible universe could have come about, all of which are pretty much unknown at this time. We simply don't know. Which leads us to the fundamental difference in how theists and scientists see the world, which is the topic of this thread:

Theist: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore our preferred supernatural creator with x,y,z characteristics did it.

Scientists: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore we must keep looking for the answers.


Also, we are still waiting on you to support your assertion that a expanding universe supports the existence of the Biblical creator. We are not holding our breath.

 

[Juma]

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.

I have never said that we need to "have the explanation for the explanation". I was very clear in that a reason for allowing humans to be an explanation of books is because we know there are humans. We doesnt need to make the existence of humans plausible by explaning them since we know that they exist.

But that was not so important compared to your weird mega fail:

Your passus about "necessary and non-contingent God" is just plain hilarious.

Who do you think you are fooling? That spooky enity is exactly the special pleading, I and others, been pointing out.

The necessity and non-contingency of god doesnt help at all if it doesnt exist.

 

[atrib]

Who do you think you are fooling? That spooky enity is exactly the special pleading, I and others, been pointing out.

A special pleading is all it is. Something cannot come from nothing, except when my preferred supercreator poofs up something from nothing.

 

[bilby]

Eternal? God is by definition eternal. The universe is evidenced not to be eternal even though some still desperately cling to the notion.

Spiderman can, by definition, do whatever a spider can.

Doesn't mean he is not fictional though.

There are some evidential hints that the universe is not eternal; but that is far from proven, and certainly doesn't qualify as axiomatic. If you want to use that assumption as an axiom, then you need to show that it is true, not just assert that it must be true because the evidence hints at it.

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.

If so, then so does God.

If everything needs a cause, then either God needs a cause, or God is nothing. (I lean towards the latter, due to the total lack of evidence that God even exists).

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.

No; the reason doesn't matter, because if the reason applies to anything, it applies to everything. Including Gods. Unless you engage in special pleading.

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?

There is no rational choice; both are problematic.

The special pleading comes from the fact that you are certain that the choice:

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

Is applicable to the universe, and has a clear logical answer - 2b; when the object is changed, you reject the identical logic that leads to:

2a) God spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused God to begin to exist.

One neat thing about the logic we are using is that it applies to ANY object. You can put any entity in, in place of the universe, and come up with a set of otherwise identical statements.

If the existence of X logically entails the existence of Y, which caused X to begin to exist, then that logic holds whether X is 'the universe' or X is 'God'.

Either God does not exist; or God requires an external cause.

Or you can step back one term, and accept that things can be eternal - but if so, you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. If you limit the value of X, at any step in your logic, then that is special pleading by definition.

 

[abaddon]

A special pleading is all it is. Something cannot come from nothing, except when my preferred supercreator poofs up something from nothing.

Yes, special pleading. And a boatload of other unfounded assumptions.

Questioning existence itself has a “come from” assumption in it that seems to go insufficiently doubted by those who find “Why is there anything at all?” meaningful. I find it no more meaningful than staring at one's own hand and wondering “Why hand?”, not as a physiological question but as an “existential” conundrum inflicted on oneself just out of pure silliness.

And also it's not likely a person can find the “most plausible explanation” about this universe's alleged beginning using common sense ideation. Common sense doesn't much apply at scales where only mathematics has a chance of describing anything. Our imaginations and language are barriers. To even talk about this stuff means treating concepts about a vast process like "the universe" as a singular thing, as if it were a big grapefruit floating in a dark void; and treating abstractions about repeated observations ("laws") as if they're "eternal" forces. Thus we build assumptions on top of assumptions that are embedded within language and not reality, and pretend we can abstract away from the images in our heads ('get objective') when we cannot.

 

[DBT]

You have not exposed any. Again….

You must not be reading what I'm saying. Or interpreting what I say in ways that were not intended.

''Premise 1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.'' - But Cycles comes from previous states, so if the universe is cyclic the present cycle is just a beginning to a cycle, and not something that a separate and distinct entity such as a 'god' - whatever that is, nobody knows - created.


''Premise 2 the universe began to exist.'' Again, we don't know if it is an absolute beginning, or just the beginning of this cycle.


''Conclusion the universe has a cause.'' - Not necessarily, given the numerous possibilities, it doesn't follow. The Universe may be a part of an endless series of cycles, it may be formed from a black hole in another universe, colliding branes or any number of other possibilities.

This is the source of your false conclusion.

Given the possibilities, cyclic, branes, multiverse, quantum fluctuations, it's not justified to argue that the universe had a absolute beginning, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore the cause has to be god.

Considering that the universe and life on Earth appears to have evolved naturally, fits and starts, extinction events, etc, the World does not appear like a special creation.

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

Your premises are false for the reasons outlined above, and in practically every reply I've posted.

 

[Underseer]

Regarding the cosmological argument, premise one is false. Getting from premise one to premise two involves a fallacy of composition. Thus premise 2 is unsupported. The conclusion only gets you to a cause, and does not provide the incredible logical leap to get from a cause to a magical invisible being.

Worse, you are trying to use big bang cosmology to support your claim, which suggests that you are getting your information about big bang theory from William Lane Craig (or someone similar) instead of physicists.

If the current understanding of the expansion model is correct, then time came into existence with the universe. If this is the case, then there is no such thing as "before the universe." Thus, the universe has to be uncaused as the cause cannot possibly come before the effect.

So to recap: premise one is wrong, getting from premise one to premise two commits a logical fallacy, premise two is thus unsupported, and the conclusion is thus unsupported. The conclusion cannot get you to proving god even if it were supported, and lastly, your attempt to use big bang cosmology to prove your case shows that you do not understand the thing you are trying to use to support your case, as it thoroughly refutes the most basic premise of your argument (that there was a "before" before the universe).

Lastly, how do you go about deciding what is contingent and what is necessary/non-contingent?

I frankly do not see how you can argue that anything is necessary/non-contingent.

If you say "God is necessary because I proved that God exists," two things are wrong with this argument. First, you haven't proved it, and second, even if you did, your own argument implies that anything that is proved is necessary, which means most of what you identify as contingent is not contingent.

 

[remez]

You keep dancing around this fact.

I’m not dancing around it. I’m dancing to it. It’s been my tune along.

All we have established at this point to some degree of certainty is that the visible universe began to exist in its present state about 13.7 BYA.

To a great, great, great degree of certainty. Without a reasonable doubt. Complete beginning ….time space matter and energy. Evidence by the most prevalent cosmological model existing. The standard big bang model is not going away and it most definitely predicts a beginning. All these failed eternal models strengthen the SBBM. The BVG theorem is even destroying the idea of looking for an eternal material model.

This does not mean that that the stuff (matter and energy) that constitutes our visible universe did not exist in some form prior to this time.

You only have that desperate self-blinding faith this is remotely possible. Why is it even possible? Because the science can logically only get Planck close. If the universe had a beginning, a total beginning, then science by its own philosophical limitations will never be able to conclude its cause. That is all you have on your side. There be monsters there.

Here is what I mean by that. Science is limited to the study of nature. If nature began to exist, totally exist, then how could we possible trace through the natural laws of physics backwards to the exact moment they began. You claim we don’t know how it began because the natural laws break down. Do they break down or are they just coming into existence? Think about it, how can science using the natural laws of physics actually follow the natural laws to back their absolute natural self-cause? I “postdict” you can’t, because the natural laws would break down just a Planck before you get there.

If just coming into existence from something non-natural then how can natural science possible know? It can’t and it won’t. That is all you have to cling too, standing against all the evidence that points to a total beginning.

Now at this point you are concluding well it just has to be natural because that is all there is. Well THAT would be special pleading. THAT would be a nature of the gaps fallacy.

Focus there was solely that the universe had a complete absolute beginning, not that the cause was a theistic God.
Some more support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Observation: Something, this visible universe, exists

This leads us to the following two options:

1. Something can come from nothing, and your premise is false
2. Something cannot come from nothing, and your premise is true.

If (1) is true, then a supernatural creator is not needed to explain the existence of the universe.

Sure he is. If the universe began then it needs a cause. A cause doesn’t have to be material to be a cause. I thought you understood the argument. When the contingency argument addressed the logic that nothing comes from nothing, it was appealing to our reasoning of a physical material causation. There can exist no material cause from nothing. Therefore the universe needs an efficient cause that is not material. The transcendent efficient cause must also be eternal, timeless sans creation, spaceless, power, and arguably personal agent.

Truly I thought you understood the two philosophies we were debating…… that we were dancing to the same tune……
ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) and creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing)
have for centuries been understood together not in conflict but support with the understanding of material and efficient causation.

Without understanding that, I would think it was overtly contradictory.

If (2) is true, a supernatural creator could not have created this universe out of nothing, because something cannot come from nothing.

The theistic God is the efficient cause not a material cause. There is no material cause. He caused all materials to be about 13.7 bya. That is the theistic doctrine and it has been for centuries even in the face of the science prior to the twentieth century proclaiming the universe was eternal. The twentieth century was very confirming.

Therefore, the stuff that makes up our visible universe has always existed, and a supernatural creator is not necessary to explain its existence.

Right there, your case is special pleading for materialism. In the face of the overwhelming evidence. The material just had to exist, it just had to, my materialism cannot grasp the probable fact that our universe began without material. The only reason you have to say that is your presupposition of materialism. That is a philosophical choice on your part. One that requires a defense, not simply assumed to be true. Thus your counter is based on a philosophy that needs to be defended before your counter stands as reasonable.
Something created something out of nothing or nothing created something out of nothing? Which is more reasonable?

So yes, while it is hypothetically possible that a sentient supernatural creator created this universe, there are potentially an infinite number of other causes by which this visible universe could have come about,

What you are referring to as hypothetically possible, has scientific support and therefore is far more plausible. Far more plausible than your desperate science fiction speculations that you are hiding behind instead of facing the evidence and the logic.

there are potentially an infinite number of other causes by which this visible universe could have come about, all of which are pretty much unknown at this time.

How does that even make sense?

We simply don't know. Which leads us to the fundamental difference in how theists and scientists see the world, which is the topic of this thread:

False dichotomy.

I’m both and I’m not going to ignore the almost certain fact, supported by the evidence, that our universe had an absolute beginning. You are creating this false dichotomy and proclaiming your self-blinding faith is better for your non-theistic side. You’re the one self-blinding yourself to the overt evidence that our universe had an absolute beginning. All the other models fail, confirm or do not escape a beginning anyway.
Some more support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Theist: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore our preferred supernatural creator with x,y,z characteristics did it.

WHY?
If you meant How? Then Straw man.

Scientists: we don't know why the universe exists, therefore we must keep looking for the answers.

WHY?
If you meant How? Then…….. As a scientist and theist I concur. But this does nothing to nullify my case for a theistic God. Should we somehow actually find empirical evidence of an eternal material environment beyond our universe then I would really have to reconsider my theism.

Also, we are still waiting on you to support your assertion that a expanding universe supports the existence of the Biblical creator. We are not holding our breath.

Redressed several times already. Find one and challenge it if you like.

 

[remez]

But that was not so important compared to your weird mega fail:

Your passus about "necessary and non-contingent God" is just plain hilarious.

Who do you think you are fooling? That spooky enity is exactly the special pleading, I and others, been pointing out.

You don’t understand the arguments you are trying to counter.

The question why does anything exist at all or what is the first cause have been profound queries for thousands of years. We’re talking centuries BC. What is the best explanation for reality? The theory for everything?

The particular arguments we were discussing involved the argument from contingency and the KCA. Both are cosmological arguments.

For something to be necessary it has to be eternal, meaning it had no cause. It exists by its own nature. It cannot not exist. For thousands of years both the universe and the theistic God were considered necessary. Yes the universe used to be considered necessary. It just existed eternally. So historically speaking this is not a case of special pleading, because for thousands of years each was considered eternal.

Contingent is a thing that began to exist. It didn’t need to exist. It was not necessary. Its existence was contingent on an explanation external to itself.

That is the definition of terms and notion of the argument that we were discussing.

So your question of what is the explanation of something that is eternal…… is that it needed to exist. If something exists now then something must be eternal. Something must be necessary. Again for thousands of years this debate has taken place with to the two major components being the universe and the theistic God.

More recent scientific discoveries have cast great, great, doubt on the belief that the universe is eternal (that’s the only real debatable part). Which means it is contingent. Its explanation is contingent on something else and not of its own eternal existence. Now if the universe is contingent (complete material beginning) then what is left for the explanation of everything?

Now in the light of the history, science and philosophy, please be more specific as to your claim that this is a case of special pleading. Support your groundless assertion.

 

[remez]

There are some evidential hints that the universe is not eternal; but that is far from proven, and certainly doesn't qualify as axiomatic. If you want to use that assumption as an axiom, then you need to show that it is true, not just assert that it must be true because the evidence hints at it.

This is very important no doubt. I have addressed it several times in this thread (most recently with atrib) and will no doubt address it again.

But for this post I want to address your special pleading charge.
Starting here for context …………………..

Or you can step back one term, and accept that things can be eternal - but if so, you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. If you limit the value of X, at any step in your logic, then that is special pleading by definition.

Fact. Of course I can accept things can be eternal. I’m a theist with a scientific background. For thousands of years through today our theistic God has been defined as eternal. For thousands of years up until the past hundred years or so our universe has been considered eternal by almost everyone non-theist and probably many theists as well.

Fact. The debate over the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, first cause has existed for approximately the past two and a half thousand years. Epimenides, Plato, Aristotle, Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas, Al-Ghazali, Leibniz, LaPlace, Russel, Sagan, Craig etc.

Fact. SBBM predicts that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it is not eternal. We can and will debate this particular point more elsewhere.

Therefore it was not special pleading the defined the universe as non-eternal and the theistic God eternal. History and science have defined the two.

Further ..... for this special pleading charge and for Further context ………………

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.

You invited me to address this issue from this starting point.

I understand this is just for the sake of argument. So to further clarify just for the sake of argument that theists assert an absolute beginning of the space-time continuum. From that reason demands that the universe began it needs a cause. If the universe were eternal it would not need a cause. God is eternal thus does not need a cause.

So allow me to show you what we (theists) are reasoning at this point………..

There is no rational choice; both are problematic.

The special pleading comes from the fact that you are certain that the choice:

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

Is applicable to the universe, and has a clear logical answer - 2b; when the object is changed, you reject the identical logic that leads to:

2a) God spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused God to begin to exist.

I think this is where we are missing each other here. The characteristic of eternity is the key.

The issue is eternity and what that means in the argument. If something is eternal it is then logically necessary and has no beginning. If it has no beginning it does not have a cause. If the universe were eternal it would not have a cause. If the universe were eternal then there would still be a debate between the theistic God and the material universe as to why there is something rather than nothing.

So this is not a case of special pleading because God is eternal and the universe is not. So in your example above, when you switched from universe to God. You were switching from non-eternal to eternal. That is that distinction that forces the different truth values. I’m not switching the logical parameters. You were switching the characters. I’m recognizing two different characteristics (eternal vs non-eternal) that logically force the two different truth values under the same logical parameters. I hope I’m making that clear.

I say again if the universe were eternal then it would not have a cause. Therefore, this it is not a case of special pleading.
Again …………….

Or you can step back one term, and accept that things can be eternal - but if so, you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. If you limit the value of X, at any step in your logic, then that is special pleading by definition.

Focus ……. Here …………….
………………. you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. ……….

Remember for the sake of argument the universe began to exist. That makes the universe non-eternal. Thus producing the two different truth values for the same logic. No special pleading.

 

[remez]

''Premise 1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.'' - But Cycles comes from previous states, so if the universe is cyclic the present cycle is just a beginning to a cycle, and not something that a separate and distinct entity such as a 'god' - whatever that is, nobody knows - created.

Assuming you are not challenging the truth value of premise 1 itself. But that you are addressing the validity of the logic from premise one to the conclusion. Then………….. It Fails 1. Due to the singularity theorems Particularly BGV. 2. The entropy factor indicates it still would have a beginning thus only kicks the can down the road. 3. Wild speculation in the face of the far more plausible SBBM and its logical implications. You can suggest all the wild possibilities you want, but at present nothing is remotely reasonable in its attempts to make the past infinite.

''Premise 2 the universe began to exist.'' Again, we don't know if it is an absolute beginning, or just the beginning of this cycle.

What we do know ….. 13.7 billion years of contraction leading towards compete non-material existence.
What we don’t ….. That last Planck second where our science is stopped by nature. Forcing an IDK.

The SBBM predicts an absolute beginning. To me what best explains the last Planck second is solved by understanding the limits of science. Science can’t possibly go any further than the beginning of nature itself. Supported by the SBBM and the singularity theorems and basic philosophy. You counter my science with scifi speculations and “because we don’t know” ideology

Given the possibilities, cyclic, branes, multiverse, quantum fluctuations, it's not justified to argue that the universe had a absolute beginning, therefore the universe must have a cause, therefore the cause has to be god.

As pointed out before the cyclic and multiverse models fail. Neither make it past the singularity theorems. Plus they don’t eliminate an absolute beginning anyway. The same goes for the brane dead model you purposed as reasonable. The brane theory is not only speculation it is speculation squared and it also fails the singularity theorem. I’m not sure you really understand these models. Because I have pointed out these failures already and you always just ignore that point. Since they have failed and the new models face the same death blow how are the reasonable counters of a beginning? The premise remains reasonably unchallenged.
Support ………….
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Considering that the universe and life on Earth appears to have evolved naturally, fits and starts, extinction events, etc, the World does not appear like a special creation.

Appears interesting but if this is to be considered a counter to the KCA you need to be a little more specific. Appearances can be deceiving. Seems more like a supportive ideology of design. But that would be a debate for the next argument.

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

Your premises are false for the reasons outlined above, and in practically every reply I've posted.

You offered speculations that I have countered again and again. You have not shown in any reasonable fashion that either premise is false. How could you claim premise one is false? It is the law of causality. To deny premise one is to deny science. Premise two you offer wild possibilities that don’t work against reasonable science. Those that are viable support an absolute beginning or as of yet haven’t been able to navigate around and absolute beginning. And your only challenge to the validity of the logic is your “idk” asserted as logic.

Premise 1 you did not show to be false. Again premise one is the law of causality. How did you show it to be false? Why would you want to?

Premise 2. Again you only offered some incredibly weak alternatives. I addressed the scientific failures of each and you have never addressed any of those failures. You simply keep offering them as possibilities. They are works of science fiction compared to obvious inference of a beginning. With the emphasis on reasonable I ask you … How do they reasonably counter premise 2?

If what you have presented against the argument fails then the argument remains. So you must address the failures of your counters in order for them to be considered reasonable. Just suggesting them does not make them reasonable. Just saying idk does not help you either.

You may claim the argument fails based on scifi but that says more about your reasoning than the argument itself. Until you can present a case as to why one of your speculative models is more reasonably supported by evidence, instead of idk, then the argument remains completely valid despite your proclamations.

 

[remez]

So much of what you simply asserted here I have already countered. But I’m willing to do it again, for now. So let’s begin right here…………….

Regarding the cosmological argument, premise one is false.

WHY?
Empty assertion.
Must be supported.
And good luck.

Getting from premise one to premise two involves a fallacy of composition.

WHY?
Make your case.
Good Luck.

The conclusion only gets you to a cause, and does not provide the incredible logical leap to get from a cause to a magical invisible being.

Granted there are two parts. Establish the universe needs a cause and from the cause logically proceed to the theistic God. I have addressed each.

Worse, you are trying to use big bang cosmology to support your claim, which suggests that you are getting your information about big bang theory from William Lane Craig (or someone similar) instead of physicists.

Blatant Genetic Fallacy.

If the current understanding of the expansion model is correct, then time came into existence with the universe. If this is the case, then there is no such thing as "before the universe." Thus, the universe has to be uncaused as the cause cannot possibly come before the effect.

Examine your logic. Your conclusion begs the question for materialism. I’m not claiming the cause was material. Plus your conclusion is worse than magic.

Lastly, how do you go about deciding what is contingent and what is necessary/non-contingent?

The same way it’s decided for the past several centuries. Look it up its common knowledge or at least should be for those trying to counter it.

If you say "God is necessary because I proved that God exists,"

I do not.

 

[Juma]

Now in the light of the history, science and philosophy, please be more specific as to your claim that this is a case of special pleading. Support your groundless assertion.

It is very easy really:

Assuming that

1) the current universe started some finite time ago
2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

There are infinitely many logical possibilities:

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe
b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)
c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.
d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.
e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.
etc

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

Your talk about "necessary" is just bullshit. We cannot know wether there is anything that is "necessary". And even if there are, we cannit know wether something specific is "necessary" or not.

 

[DBT]

Now in the light of the history, science and philosophy, please be more specific as to your claim that this is a case of special pleading. Support your groundless assertion.

It is very easy really:

Assuming that

1) the current universe started some finite time ago
2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

There are infinitely many logical possibilities:

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe
b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)
c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.
d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.
e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.
etc

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

Your talk about "necessary" is just bullshit. We cannot know wether there is anything that is "necessary". And even if there are, we cannit know wether something specific is "necessary" or not.

That's about it. A good summary. The objections from remez are just a repeat of the same assertions about the necessity of god (whatever that is).

 

[bilby]

This is very important no doubt. I have addressed it several times in this thread (most recently with atrib) and will no doubt address it again.

But for this post I want to address your special pleading charge.
Starting here for context …………………..

Or you can step back one term, and accept that things can be eternal - but if so, you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. If you limit the value of X, at any step in your logic, then that is special pleading by definition.

Fact. Of course I can accept things can be eternal. I’m a theist with a scientific background. For thousands of years through today our theistic God has been defined as eternal. For thousands of years up until the past hundred years or so our universe has been considered eternal by almost everyone non-theist and probably many theists as well.

Fact. The debate over the unmoved mover, uncaused cause, first cause has existed for approximately the past two and a half thousand years. Epimenides, Plato, Aristotle, Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas, Al-Ghazali, Leibniz, LaPlace, Russel, Sagan, Craig etc.

Fact. SBBM predicts that the universe had a beginning, and therefore it is not eternal. We can and will debate this particular point more elsewhere.

Therefore it was not special pleading the defined the universe as non-eternal and the theistic God eternal. History and science have defined the two.

Science doesn't mention Gods; It has no need of that hypothesis. The history of Gods is a history of special pleading. There is EXACTLY ZERO evidence for God as the "unmoved mover, uncaused cause, first cause"; and therefore no reason at all to accept it. If we accept that the universe had a beginning; and that something else had to exist eternally, to cause that beginning, then that gets you no closer to demonstrating the existence of God than you were when you started - the only reason to even CONSIDER God as a possibility is your pre-existing belief - so you have a circular argument.

Further ..... for this special pleading charge and for Further context ………………

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.

You invited me to address this issue from this starting point.

I understand this is just for the sake of argument. So to further clarify just for the sake of argument that theists assert an absolute beginning of the space-time continuum. From that reason demands that the universe began it needs a cause. If the universe were eternal it would not need a cause.

Agreed.

God is eternal thus does not need a cause.

Says you. Prove it. You can't use it as an axiom in a proof of itself. That's Circular Reasoning - another logical fallacy.

So allow me to show you what we (theists) are reasoning at this point………..

There is no rational choice; both are problematic.

The special pleading comes from the fact that you are certain that the choice:

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

Is applicable to the universe, and has a clear logical answer - 2b; when the object is changed, you reject the identical logic that leads to:

2a) God spontaneously started to exist from nothing.
2b) Something caused God to begin to exist.

I think this is where we are missing each other here. The characteristic of eternity is the key.

The issue is eternity and what that means in the argument. If something is eternal it is then logically necessary and has no beginning. If it has no beginning it does not have a cause. If the universe were eternal it would not have a cause. If the universe were eternal then there would still be a debate between the theistic God and the material universe as to why there is something rather than nothing.

So this is not a case of special pleading because God is eternal and the universe is not.

Your statement "God is eternal" IS special pleading. You are assuming a characteristic for you God that no other entity shares; and you are doing so as a matter of fiat. That won't fly; You can't prove God by assuming that you know something about God that makes God 'necessary'. That is the very essence of special pleading.

So in your example above, when you switched from universe to God. You were switching from non-eternal to eternal.

Was I? How do you KNOW? How do you demonstrate that I wasn't switching from non-eternal to non-eternal; or from eternal to fictional? You can't assume this; it is the thing you are setting out to prove. You need to demonstrate it logically.

That is that distinction that forces the different truth values. I’m not switching the logical parameters. You were switching the characters. I’m recognizing two different characteristics (eternal vs non-eternal) that logically force the two different truth values under the same logical parameters. I hope I’m making that clear.

You are making it very clear; But I am pointing out that your "recognizing two different characteristics (eternal vs non-eternal) that logically force the two different truth values under the same logical parameters" is special pleading - You are claiming a difference between two entities based ONLY on your desire for one of them to be different. I have seen no other reason from you for WHY they should be treated differently, or assumed to be different in any way. all you have so far is your word, and the word of a bunch of other people. The plural of error is not data.

I say again if the universe were eternal then it would not have a cause.

Agreed

Therefore, this it is not a case of special pleading.
Again …………….

Nope. Absent special pleading, we have to assume all entities to have the same characteristics (until proven otherwise). If the universe and God were both eternal, the universe would not have a cause, and there would be no need for God. If the universe and God are both non-eternal, God requires a cause and does not solve our conundrum. ONLY if God and the universe are DEMONSTRATED to be different in this regard do you have a case; You have glossed over the possibility that the universe is eternal; but even accepting that it has a beginning, we don't have any logical reason to say that that is not ALSO true of God - so making that assertion IS special pleading.

And it gets worse; You have ruled out 'The universe' as a candidate for eternality; but you haven't ruled out ANYTHING else. IF we accept that stuff exists 'outside' or 'in addition to' the universe, then what basis do we have (other than Special Pleading) to think that the ONLY such entity is your God?

Or you can step back one term, and accept that things can be eternal - but if so, you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. If you limit the value of X, at any step in your logic, then that is special pleading by definition.

Focus ……. Here …………….
………………. you must accept that this logically means X could be eternal, whether X is 'the universe' or 'God'. ……….

Remember for the sake of argument the universe began to exist. That makes the universe non-eternal. Thus producing the two different truth values for the same logic. No special pleading.

OK, so you can replace your Special Pleading fallacy with a False Dichotomy fallacy if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe began to exist.

We have shown, logically, that IF our assumptions are correct, X is eternal, X is NOT 'The universe', and X caused the universe to exist; but the idea that the only two possible values for X are 'God' or 'The universe' is a false dichotomy. Other possibilities exist. Indeed, there are an infinity of such possibilities, of which 'God' of any flavour is a small subset; and the Christian God that you seem to prefer is but one member of that subset - which may be small compared to infinity, but is very large indeed compared to your one preferred entity.

 

[remez]

First I would like you to address this special pleading charge.

Now in the light of the history, science and philosophy, please be more specific as to your claim that this is a case of special pleading. Support your groundless assertion.

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

Ok ….. open to research possibilities….. so………..
Please explain how your response supports your charge that my case is special pleading. I understand your assertion of alternatives but how does that make my case special pleading?
Moving on…………

1) the current universe started some finite time ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now let’s go through your lineup.

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe

See e).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[remez]

Again you have not shown either premise to be false or that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. Despite the false obituaries this argument is far from dead.

Your premises are false for the reasons outlined above, and in practically every reply I've posted.

You offered speculations that I have countered again and again. You have not shown in any reasonable fashion that either premise is false. How could you claim premise one is false? It is the law of causality. To deny premise one is to deny science. Premise two you offer wild possibilities that don’t work against reasonable science. Those that are viable support an absolute beginning or as of yet haven’t been able to navigate around and absolute beginning. And your only challenge to the validity of the logic is your “idk” asserted as logic.

Premise 1 you did not show to be false. Again premise one is the law of causality. How did you show it to be false? Why would you want to?

Premise 2. Again you only offered some incredibly weak alternatives. I addressed the scientific failures of each and you have never addressed any of those failures. You simply keep offering them as possibilities. They are works of science fiction compared to obvious inference of a beginning. With the emphasis on reasonable I ask you … How do they reasonably counter premise 2?

If what you have presented against the argument fails then the argument remains. So you must address the failures of your counters in order for them to be considered reasonable. Just suggesting them does not make them reasonable. Just saying idk does not help you either.

You may claim the argument fails based on scifi but that says more about your reasoning than the argument itself. Until you can present a case as to why one of your speculative models is more reasonably supported by evidence, instead of idk, then the argument remains completely valid despite your proclamations.

Did you miss that post 173 above?

Because your only response since was this post to Juma regarding me, reiterating that same groundless assertions…….

Assuming that

1) the current universe started some finite time ago
2) there was a something "beyond" that started it.

There are infinitely many logical possibilities:

a) this universe is a simulation in another universe
b) universe is cyclic (big bang, big crunch, big bang)
c) some mad alien scientist created it in his lab by mistake.
d) a seed has been existing for eternity and then become this universe.
e) this universe started as a quantum event in another universe.
etc

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

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

That's about it. A good summary.

And Now???
Post 178

 

[remez]

OK, so you can replace your Special Pleading fallacy with a False Dichotomy fallacy if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the universe began to exist.

We have shown, logically, that IF our assumptions are correct, X is eternal, X is NOT 'The universe', and X caused the universe to exist; but the idea that the only two possible values for X are 'God' or 'The universe' is a false dichotomy. Other possibilities exist.

Nowhere have I indicated that X had to be only the theistic God or the universe.
Do you have something to share as a potential candidate?
Be prepared to defend your candidate.

Indeed, there are an infinity of such possibilities,

Indeed. So how does the theist move from the universe needing a cause to that cause is the theistic God? Is it an arbitrary “love me-love me not” pedal plucking plot? Is it a blind faith approach? Is it a matter of subjective opinion? What if I told you that the approach the theist employs here is a rational combination of science, metaphysics, philosophy and theology?

Simple process actually. Forensically compile a list of characteristics that the cause of the universe would need to possess, if indeed it had an absolute beginning.

This is a forensic (scientific) exercise mind you.

Then juxtapose that forensic list to your “infinite” list of suspects.

Then release the unreasonable suspects.

of which 'God' of any flavour is a small subset; and the Christian God that you seem to prefer is but one member of that subset -

Same process described above.

Please note I claim these two arguments point to a theistic God not specifically the Christian God. That would require additional evidences beyond the scope of these two arguments alone.