If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Keith&Co.]

You say, 11:11 is the longest minute of the day! It is! It is longer than all the others! And I will say, "nothing about what you said offers me any reason to even go get a stop watch and sit in front of the clock at 11:11 to test that. .."

Of course not. Since 23:59 is the longest minute.
I know you're being facetious, but i also know this is a fact.

Sometimes.

Less than 30 times since the 70's, they have added a Leap Second to the last minute of June, or the last minute of December.
So, while 11:11 is always the same, 2359 CAN be longer.



We (and i literally mean me and my coworkers) teach this to sailors as it's an important component of the fire control problem for the D-5 missile. I can talk about this for an hour. I subscribe to the the International Earth Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS) site

https://www.iers.org/

, so i know there will be no Leap Second this year, which is probably good, 2020 being such a shitshow....

So, anyway, i guess /\ this is more what you're looking for? As an argument? Actually spelling out whati mean, how i know this to be true), even a reference cited? Not just, 'Nuh-uh....'

 

[Rhea]

Oh wait……I almost missed this one…….It wasn’t bravely addressed to me……….it’s more like some atheistic cuddle huddle squawking….

It's not always about you, remez. I didn't "address it to you" because I don't care if you answer it. There are more people than you in this conversation. That is not a matter of "braverry," since I am wel;l aware that you can read whatever you want and answer whatever you want.

For example remez here says, “my proof is that I said the words, ‘Red Shift’.”

I realize that this is your fantasy, but I would never reason that. If I did then you would be correct. But that is inherently the problem with fantasy.

Pardon me, you probably said your "evidence" was red shift. Careless on my part. The main point being that you did not say how. That made your statement unconvincing.

The reason????? Is pretty straight forward……
Even Einstein understood the implications of an expanding universe. Because if you reverse the GTR you would reasonably return to a past finite universe.

I don't find it convincing that this is reasonable - "finite" by which I assume you mean, "had a beginning, right then."

Well a singularity at the limit of science.

Oh, right. That's why. Doesn't mean beginning. So the whole thing falls apart. That's why it is not convincing as an argument that a god had to be responsible. Let alone a god that looks exactly like yours.

He even added a fudge factor into his equations to render the universe static and eternal. He went on to call the fudge factor his biggest mistake. (at least I pretty sure he said that, I’m trying to be quick).

Adds to not convincing. You assume (assuming you correctly quote him) that the mistaken fudge factor means beginning right then, caused by your god.

BTW it was the evidence of red shift that convinced him that the universe was expanding.

not related to either the state of pre-big bang as a "beginning," nor, as should be obvious now, that it relates to a magic god or that it looks like yours. It points to a singularity, but not what may or may not have come before a singularity.

And as reasoned ….evidence for a past finite universe.

The "reasoning" is unconvincing.

Thus the KCA is unharmed by your fallacious reasoning.

I have not memorized what the KCA entails and I have learned not to spend time on theorems of the religious because they so far have always been a waste of precious time. If you can't sound convincing then I don't expect your cult theorems to be convincing. I'm sure I've heard the argument, probably read it. But unconvincing stuff doesn't earn space in my head so it gets cleansed. I used to spend time wondering about all those christian theories, but they were so shallow that my eyes glazed over and I instead enjoy puzzling out why humans do what they do.

Thank you….. that is what I was after……. A chance to examine the reasoning you had to reject the evidence and reasoning of the theist. For in this case your reasoning was far far less reasonable than mine.

I did not reject evidence. You have failed to provide any. You said some science words and then you asserted, "it would reasonably happen my way" and you call that evidence.
Nope. That is not what evidence is. You are not presenting evidence. You are drawing a conclusion without evidence and asserting it.


"There are dump trucks that always drive back to the yard at night, so it would reasonably be a dump-truck magnet made by a dump truck god who creates them new every day."
It just doesn't work that way.

Thus your assertion that all you have seen from theistic reasoning and evidence is flawed.

It is not flawed that they are unconvincing.

But you can still have “faith” that you’re are right.

Who knows if I'm right. I am unconvinced that you have anything useful on the subject. And it's certain that you have not presented "evidence," you've just handwaved and said, you "reasonably" conclude when you have not shown that to be reasonable.


However, you do start to show an answer to the question, "HOW do you come to believe that?" You appear to do it by leaping from a statement of a scientific principle to claiming that it "reasonably" has attributes that it does not have. Just leap to granting superpowers, and they they must look like your god's superpowers.

 

[Rhea]

Something that you still don’t seem to have understood from my first post. We are not having the same conversation.

You’re trying to “win” against me.
I’m studying you.

 

[remez]

Same for those that assert science has disproven God. However science can support the premise that the universe began to exist. Which supplies support that God exists.

Note your statement is philosophical. So let me dispute that. A major branch of philosophy is epistemology. How we know what we know. Our debate here is foundationally epistemic. Think about this…..science itself is a philosophical construct constructed to discover natural explanations of our reality. Science is based on philosophy. Very good philosophy.

Philosophically we are trying to determine is whose explanation of this reality is the better fit. Yours or mine. We will each refer to science to support our case. This is not a conflict between theism and science. No way. It is a conflict between theism and atheism. Thus the question is….. Which worldview is better supported by the science? You don’t just get to assume the science is on your side. You have to make a case for that.

Your assumption of a first cause (god) may have some support from some philosophers but certainly not all...

You have provided no reasoning to support your assertion that God is assumed. But I concur that not all philosophers agree. Thus some are more reasonable than others. But you and I both already knew that.

there is certainly no evidence that I know of.

No evidence or you did not find the evidence compelling. The KCA (that seems to be your focus) is sound and valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. So your task is to show me where the premises are wrong or where the reasoning is in error.

Belief in a god is faith and faith is belief without evidence.

Well that kind of faith wasn’t good enough for me. Let’s get past this and have a grown up discussion. Let’s go with I belief/trust/am convinced that God exists. All of those terms infer that I have evidence and reasoning for my belief. Deal with that instead of trying to hide behind your hand waving dismissal of my evidence and reasoning with your “faith” issues. I can address your error in this faith thing but really there is no reason to here. I’m here and I’m giving you evidence and reasoning for what I believe. Are you just going to ignore the evidence before you?

Thankfully you did not……..

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not.

Not with absolute certainty. But philosophy and science certainly support a past finite universe far more than an infinite one. You have seen the evidence I have provided many times. You cannot reasonably argue that a past infinite universe is more reasonable. Not even close. We are to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt. Cosmologist (atheists) are even writing books about their theories of how it happened naturally. They have failed miserably. But their efforts do add support the ever strengthening paradigm of a universe from nothing. At this point you would have to be using Dawkins definition of faith to consider a past eternal universe. His definition was a belief held against the evidence.

We don't know the exact mechanism of how life begin.

No we don’t scientifically. But what are you inferring was the argument there?

We don't know why a loved one died.

Again I agree in most cases. But how is that used as an argument for God? I can’t assume your argument. What are you looking for?

We don't know how that stain on the wall came to resemble the Virgin Mary or a burnt mark on a grilled cheese sandwich looks somewhat like Jesus.

If anyone offered you that as evidence for God then you would be unreasonable to believe it. I’m on your side with that one.

There is a hell of a lot that we know we don't know. Probably much more that we don't yet know that we don't know.

I agree.

A good start but you are again assuming your conclusion that there was a first cause (god).

Again empty assertion. The argument reasons and concludes that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal first cause. Not assumed. To you it may not be compelling, but that doesn’t render God assumed on the part of the theist.

Even though it is a popular idea among some in science, it is a minority idea.

Provide some evidence that the majority oppose the SBBM.

If it did began, was it a rebound from a previous collapse,.

Fails scientifically. Insufficient mass for gravity to reverse expansion. Entropy is conserved thus you do not avoid a beginning. Basic stuff. It’s only a fantasy to avoid a beginning. Name a oscillation model still being espoused today. Simply naming an opposing model does not make your case. It needs to be rational.

a quantum fluctuation, etc

They all fail but which one do you want me to address. Your generality here suggests your belief in authority speculations as credible alternatives. Show me you can hang and present one that is your candidate as most credible.

To take that 'we don't know' and assume it means evidence for or proof of GOD is exactly what is meant by gotg.

Your absolute certainty line of reasoning is flawed.

This is what you are really saying “because skepticalbip doesn’t absolutely know for certain” it means remez assuming. Very flawed.

I’m fine leaving it right there vs what you presented thus far. You have nothing to support your assertions other than your abuse of absolute certainty. It’s arbitrary and inconsistent and completely irrational. A very weak attempt to avoid any serious reasoning. Just as useless as saying faith means no evidence required.

bump

 

[remez]

Something that you still don’t seem to have understood from my first post. We are not having the same conversation.

You’re trying to “win” against me.
I’m studying you.

Now you want to pretend passiveness. Not buying.

I realize that this is your fantasy, but I would never reason that. If I did then you would be correct. But that is inherently the problem with fantasy.

Pardon me, you probably said your "evidence" was red shift. Careless on my part.

Pardon not granted because it was not that innocent. You were reasoning the red shift was my reasoning and rightfully chastised it. But red shift was part of my evidence to support the reasoning. Since you hypocritically masturbated the whole conversation it needed to be called out as your error.

The main point being that you did not say how. That made your statement unconvincing.

It was not my statement. What complete hypocrisy. That was you putting words in to my mouth. Hence the straw man fallacy. I was fair though when I said that if I reasoned that then you would be right in chastising my reasoning.

The reason????? Is pretty straight forward……
Even Einstein understood the implications of an expanding universe. Because if you reverse the GTR you would reasonably return to a past finite universe.

I don't find it convincing that this is reasonable - "finite" by which I assume you mean, "had a beginning, right then."

Not hiding from that at all. You can reason it unconvincing. But is your reason more reasonable than mine?

Because the universe began to exist
OR.....
it didn’t and is eternal.
so
Which is it?
It is not an issue of IDK. I know we don’t have absolute certainty. Which is more reasonable?
Again…….
Which position is more reasonable in the light of the science we have today?

Refusing to answer this question based on IDK is a refusing to reason, because I’m not asking for absolute certainty. You would then be in the less reasonable position.

Thus the KCA is unharmed by your fallacious reasoning.

I have not memorized what the KCA entails and I have learned not to spend time on theorems of the religious because they so far have always been a waste of precious time.

Then your initial statement regarding all theistic reasoning being objectively wrong is based you’re your ignorance of what is out there and your learned apathy not to reason through what is out there.

Thank you for admitting it.

That goes for your thread …… If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating? ….as well. You don’t even know the reasoning that’s out there and aren’t really interested. You learned not to be. You have your dogma in place. What is it called when someone makes conclusions without having all the evidence and reasoning?

 

[steve_bank]

Pardon not granted

To err is human, to forgive is divines don't you agree remez? Give love in return for slight, turn the other cheek?

 

[skepticalbip]

Same for those that assert science has disproven God. However science can support the premise that the universe began to exist. Which supplies support that God exists.

Note your statement is philosophical. So let me dispute that. A major branch of philosophy is epistemology. How we know what we know. Our debate here is foundationally epistemic. Think about this…..science itself is a philosophical construct constructed to discover natural explanations of our reality. Science is based on philosophy. Very good philosophy.

Philosophically we are trying to determine is whose explanation of this reality is the better fit. Yours or mine. We will each refer to science to support our case. This is not a conflict between theism and science. No way. It is a conflict between theism and atheism. Thus the question is….. Which worldview is better supported by the science? You don’t just get to assume the science is on your side. You have to make a case for that.

You have provided no reasoning to support your assertion that God is assumed. But I concur that not all philosophers agree. Thus some are more reasonable than others. But you and I both already knew that.

No evidence or you did not find the evidence compelling. The KCA (that seems to be your focus) is sound and valid. The conclusion follows from the premises. So your task is to show me where the premises are wrong or where the reasoning is in error.

Belief in a god is faith and faith is belief without evidence.

Well that kind of faith wasn’t good enough for me. Let’s get past this and have a grown up discussion. Let’s go with I belief/trust/am convinced that God exists. All of those terms infer that I have evidence and reasoning for my belief. Deal with that instead of trying to hide behind your hand waving dismissal of my evidence and reasoning with your “faith” issues. I can address your error in this faith thing but really there is no reason to here. I’m here and I’m giving you evidence and reasoning for what I believe. Are you just going to ignore the evidence before you?

Thankfully you did not……..

We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not.

Not with absolute certainty. But philosophy and science certainly support a past finite universe far more than an infinite one. You have seen the evidence I have provided many times. You cannot reasonably argue that a past infinite universe is more reasonable. Not even close. We are to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt. Cosmologist (atheists) are even writing books about their theories of how it happened naturally. They have failed miserably. But their efforts do add support the ever strengthening paradigm of a universe from nothing. At this point you would have to be using Dawkins definition of faith to consider a past eternal universe. His definition was a belief held against the evidence.

We don't know the exact mechanism of how life begin.

No we don’t scientifically. But what are you inferring was the argument there?

We don't know why a loved one died.

Again I agree in most cases. But how is that used as an argument for God? I can’t assume your argument. What are you looking for?

We don't know how that stain on the wall came to resemble the Virgin Mary or a burnt mark on a grilled cheese sandwich looks somewhat like Jesus.

If anyone offered you that as evidence for God then you would be unreasonable to believe it. I’m on your side with that one.

There is a hell of a lot that we know we don't know. Probably much more that we don't yet know that we don't know.

I agree.

A good start but you are again assuming your conclusion that there was a first cause (god).

Again empty assertion. The argument reasons and concludes that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal first cause. Not assumed. To you it may not be compelling, but that doesn’t render God assumed on the part of the theist.

Even though it is a popular idea among some in science, it is a minority idea.

Provide some evidence that the majority oppose the SBBM.

If it did began, was it a rebound from a previous collapse,.

Fails scientifically. Insufficient mass for gravity to reverse expansion. Entropy is conserved thus you do not avoid a beginning. Basic stuff. It’s only a fantasy to avoid a beginning. Name a oscillation model still being espoused today. Simply naming an opposing model does not make your case. It needs to be rational.

a quantum fluctuation, etc

They all fail but which one do you want me to address. Your generality here suggests your belief in authority speculations as credible alternatives. Show me you can hang and present one that is your candidate as most credible.

To take that 'we don't know' and assume it means evidence for or proof of GOD is exactly what is meant by gotg.

Your absolute certainty line of reasoning is flawed.

This is what you are really saying “because skepticalbip doesn’t absolutely know for certain” it means remez assuming. Very flawed.

I’m fine leaving it right there vs what you presented thus far. You have nothing to support your assertions other than your abuse of absolute certainty. It’s arbitrary and inconsistent and completely irrational. A very weak attempt to avoid any serious reasoning. Just as useless as saying faith means no evidence required.

bump

You apparently want a response to this.

I didn't answer this nonsense before because I try to avoid, chasing strawmen, when someone is telling me what I am saying rather than responding to what I wrote, posts that display ignorance of a subject but asserts nonsensical claims as certainty, and other indications that they have no real argument or defense to make.

 

[abaddon]

remez,

You're trying to force a position onto people here and twist their arms into "admitting" their position (that we "believe" in an eternal universe). "I don't know" is not the same as "because I don't know therefore you don't have reasons (for your choice to get dogmatic about it)".

It's a perverse use of the word "believe" to keep insisting you have to believe something. No. A person really doesn't have to believe a thing that's not evident. Have a favorite guess or opinion, yeah. But believe, no. I neither believe that all existence always existed nor that it began. It's not an either/or choice with a lean one direction that I must take.

The merits of the various guesses could be discussed... But why bother with a bent freak like you who cannot have a forthright discussion with people about the possibilities but wants to drive a Mack truck over that discussion and try to manipulate everyone into the position you insist that they must take?

The KCA like all EoG arguments is a question-begging argument that doesn't convince. Now, STOP... and do not twist what I mean by "does not convince" again. "Doesn't convince" means I've seen the argument and I've seen how it creates more questions than it answers. The subject remains objectively tentative enough to reasonably take the stance of "IDK".

 

[Wiploc]

bump

Okay, I'll bite.

Same for those that assert science has disproven God.

I've met one of those in my life.

However science can support the premise that the universe began to exist.

If that's true, I want to know about it. What support do you offer?

Which supplies support that God exists.

I think you made that up, but if you can support the claim, I'm avid to see the support.

No evidence or you did not find the evidence compelling.

What evidence supports the claim that gods exist? I don't know of any such evidence that survives scrutiny. I've seen "evidence" based on sleight-of-mouth, that weighs zero in the scales of persuasion, but that's the same as no evidence at all. It's not real evidence. It's worthless.

If real evidence exists, I want to know about it.

The KCA (that seems to be your focus) is sound and valid.

That's absurd. Would you call the bicycle argument sound and valid?

• The Bicycle Argument:
  
  P1: The sun will rise tomorrow.
  P2: No, the sun will not rise tomorrow.
  C: Therefore, you must buy me a bicycle.

The premises are suspect, arguable contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false), and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

The bicycle argument is a parody of the first cause argument. If you'd call one sound and valid, you can with equal justification call the other sound and valid.

If you present your "sound" and "valid" KCA, I will point out flaws.

The conclusion follows from the premises.

Or not. If terms are equivocated between the premise and the conclusion, then the conclusion does not follow from the premises. If terms are not equivocated, then the conclusion is the trivial claim that some things began.

So your task is to show me where the premises are wrong or where the reasoning is in error.

I'm your huckleberry.

... I have evidence and reasoning for my belief. Deal with that ...

Great, present your evidence.

But philosophy and science certainly support a past finite universe far more than an infinite one.

I'm keen to learn of this support.

You have seen the evidence I have provided many times.

I'm not aware of seeing a reasonable argument -- one that survives being looked at -- even once.

You cannot reasonably argue that a past infinite universe is more reasonable. Not even close.

Right back atcha: You cannot reasonably argue that a begun universe is more reasonable. Not even close.

We are to the point of beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you back that up, you'll be world famous.

Cosmologist (atheists) are even writing books about their theories of how it happened naturally. They have failed miserably.

If it doesn't make cosmologists right that theists fail miserably, then it doesn't make theists right that cosmologists fail miserably.

But their efforts do add support the ever strengthening paradigm of a universe from nothing.

Is this the "God created himself argument," or something else.

I'm all ears.

At this point you would have to be using Dawkins definition of faith to consider a past eternal universe. His definition was a belief held against the evidence.

Again, that's absurd. Either the universe began or it is an infinite regress.* One or the other. I can contemplate both of those without being aware of Dawkins' definition of "faith."

* Yes, this is a layman's simplification, keeping things on a sixth grade level. It doesn't consider, for instance, Hawkings' "finite but unbounded" theory. But (a) I am a layman, and (b) simple responses to simple arguments are appropriate. If you want to introduce some third thing, neither a beginning nor an infinite regress, then I'll be happy to consider it.

The argument reasons and concludes that there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal first cause. Not assumed. To you it may not be compelling, but that doesn’t render God assumed on the part of the theist.

Show us the arguments and reasons. I am keen to understand.

Simply naming an opposing model does not make your case. It needs to be rational.

Exactly. Don't just say that rational arguments prove there must be a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal first cause. Say what those arguments are.

 

[abaddon]

I'd like to suggest that one of the atheists intrigued by remez's version of WLC's version of the KCA should start a thread devoted to discussing it. remez has been complaining about some atheist's way of summarizing theists belief as "blind faith" and "no evidence" in a few different threads. So, if a specific thread isn't assigned to the KCA it might continue to be a scattering of discussions.

More focus specifically on it and less on atheist phrasings would help it proceed in a reasonable way, maybe.

 

[Wiploc]

I'd like to suggest that one of the atheists intrigued by remez's version of WLC's version of the KCA should start a thread devoted to discussing it. remez has been complaining about some atheist's way of summarizing theists belief as "blind faith" and "no evidence" in a few different threads. So, if a specific thread isn't assigned to the KCA it might continue to be a scattering of discussions.

More focus specifically on it and less on atheist phrasings would help it proceed in a reasonable way, maybe.

I'm for that. We can even do a one-on-one debate, if that appeals to remez.

 

[Rhea]

Now you want to pretend passiveness. Not buying.

I’m not selling. I don’t give a care if you buy. I just am what I am.
You’re the one who seems desperate that I be interested in your glurge.

Pardon me, you probably said your "evidence" was red shift. Careless on my part.

Pardon not granted because it was not that innocent.

Aaaah, ye olde mind-reader tricke.
If you are paranoid, it does not change my reality.

Because the universe began to exist
OR.....
it didn’t and is eternal.
so
Which is it?
It is not an issue of IDK. I know we don’t have absolute certainty. Which is more reasonable?
Again…….
Which position is more reasonable in the light of the science we have today?

Nothing comes from nothing. It is more reasonable that it was always there. You have said nothing that changes that.

Refusing to answer this question based on IDK is a refusing to reason, because I’m not asking for absolute certainty. You would then be in the less reasonable position.

Nope. That is absolutely false. To claim a reason because you “have to” choose sides is a fallacy. As a person who experiments for a living, that is not what we do. “The universe behaves differently than everything in the universe and there’s a magic “god” who drives it,” is NOT the Null Hypothesis.

But again, since all i’m finding interest in is HOW you think, that’s an interesting bit of evidence in how you think.

Thus the KCA is unharmed by your fallacious reasoning.

I have not memorized what the KCA entails and I have learned not to spend time on theorems of the religious because they so far have always been a waste of precious time.

Then your initial statement regarding all theistic reasoning being objectively wrong is based you’re your ignorance of what is out there and your learned apathy not to reason through what is out there.

Thank you for admitting it.

Oh, remez. I said I had not MEMORIZED it. I’ve heard it, looked at it, filed it as unconvincing and moved on. It doesn’t get a space in my head after being found lacking.

That goes for your thread …… If god is true, why are christians so terrible at debating? ….as well. You don’t even know the reasoning that’s out there and aren’t really interested.

That’s an interesting conclusion. You see me start a thread, and you conclude I am doing that because I’m apathetic about learning. I ask questions because I’m not interested. That’s weird.

And as I said, I do know the reasoning out there, it’s terrible. As I told you, I spent a period of trying to understand what makes you people tick by looking up all these arguments. They were shallow and flawed. They still are. And they are all the same ones.


You are interesting to watch though. You are relentless in trying to get people to believe your arguments, you doggedly try to reconstruct people’s answers to fit into your belief. I wonder if you do this because without validation, you are desperately afraid it is weak and fails to prove your god. And you MUST get other humans to see your god in order to maintain your belief?

I dunno. It’s interesting to watch, though. The desperation to get “people to admit” that you are right. But the same arguments ad nauseum, for years. 13 years here. But still you present the same thing, appearing so needy; “aha! You see I am right!” When, of course, no one said, “I see you are right.”

Sorry remez. But your arguments have fallen flat. They are not believable, they are not compelling, they are not convincing. I find they are full of holes and leaps and flaws. I can see that this doesn’t bother you, and that this in turn comforts you.

I do get that. The universe must feel very scary to you if it doesn’t care.
For me, I am not affected. It is what it is, I am what I am. I do not need the idea of eternal life to feel safe. You appear to need that, and so you create it. (Ironically, out of nothing).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You cannot reasonably argue that a begun universe is more reasonable. Not even close.

A begun universe? Is it fair then to refer to remez's position as Beginnerism? That would make such a devotee a beginnerist.

I think I'll go with that.

 

[steve_bank]

Christians are textbook examples of passive-aggressive.

 

[skepticalbip]

You cannot reasonably argue that a begun universe is more reasonable. Not even close.

A begun universe? Is it fair then to refer to remez's position as Beginnerism? That would make such a devotee a beginnerist.

I think I'll go with that.

I think creationist is still a good name for his position. Creationists are those who fall back on "god did it" whenever faced with something they don't understand. Remez can think of no possibilities to explain the universe so 'knows' god created it.

 

[bigfield]

Remez previously presented his argument in this thread: Theological Fine Tuning:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13832-Theological-Fine-Tuning

Basically, it boils down to this:
1. Based on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a past-finite universe is more likely than a past-infinite universe.
2. Therefore, the KCA is sound.

My objection then, as now, is that it is incorrect to conclude from the BGV theorem that a past finite universe is more likely, and that the only conclusion we can reasonably make at this point is that we don't know either way.

Remez likes to quote the opinion of Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem, who believes that the universe is most likely past-finite. This is pointless, because one of the other authors, Alan Guth, believes that the universe is most likely past-infinite. The BGV theorem doesn't prove either of them correct.

He doesn't appear to have made any progress since then.

 

[remez]

I'd like to suggest that one of the atheists intrigued by remez's version of WLC's version of the KCA should start a thread devoted to discussing it. remez has been complaining about some atheist's way of summarizing theists belief as "blind faith" and "no evidence" in a few different threads. So, if a specific thread isn't assigned to the KCA it might continue to be a scattering of discussions.

More focus specifically on it and less on atheist phrasings would help it proceed in a reasonable way, maybe.

I'm for that. We can even do a one-on-one debate, if that appeals to remez.

Here is best, because my time is sporadic at best.
So…….

The KCA (that seems to be your focus) is sound and valid.

That's absurd. Would you call the bicycle argument sound and valid?



• The Bicycle Argument:

P1: The sun will rise tomorrow.
P2: No, the sun will not rise tomorrow.
C: Therefore, you must buy me a bicycle.



The premises are suspect, arguable contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false), and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

The bicycle argument is a parody of the first cause argument. If you'd call one sound and valid, you can with equal justification call the other sound and valid.

If you present your "sound" and "valid" KCA, I will point out flaws.

Parsed…

Would you call the bicycle argument sound and valid?

no

The premises are suspect, arguable contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false), and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Agree. I’m familiar with the reasoning required to analyze arguments.

The bicycle argument is a parody of the first cause argument. If you'd call one sound and valid, you can with equal justification call the other sound and valid.

I agree with you that the bicycle argument fails for the reasons you presented. But how is it a parody of the first cause argument? You provided no reasoning for the analogy.

Would your bicycle-parody-reasoning destroy……

p1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws.
p2. Natural laws are immutable.
p3. It is impossible to violate immutable laws.
c Therefore, miracles are impossible.

Or this reasoning

1. Natural law is by definition a description of a regular occurrence.
2. A miracle is by definition a rare occurrence.
3. The evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare.
4. A wise man always bases his belief on the greater evidence.
5. Therefore, a wise man should never believe in miracles.

It seems that you are saying the all syllogistic reasoning is wrong by bicycle parody. I don’t get it.

If you present your "sound" and "valid" KCA, I will point out flaws.

p1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.

Brief intro…..I reason that the universe (by universe I mean, all of spacetime reality, the space time continuum to include all time, space and matter) began to exist. Evidenced by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, expanding universe, cosmic radiation background, the galaxy seeds, relativity, the BGV theorem, all the failed cosmological models for and eternal universe, the absence of any viable cosmological model theorizing eternality in the past, etc.
I’m not claiming absolute certainty, I claiming reasonable certainty. So this is how that plays out in p2. I’m not asserting that I’m absolutely certain that the universe began, but that p2 is more reasonable than it’s alternatives……thus I’m reasonably certain that it began. Put another way…. I contend that it is far more plausible that the universe began to exist than the possibility that it is eternal in the past. Also to be clear….. I’m not asserting I know HOW it began, but that I’m reasonably certain THAT it began.

In no way was that intro exhaustive, it was very brief, because I’m granting to you a higher level of understanding with the KCA. I was just hoping to avoid the obvious bogs I usually run into here. However, I’m ready to address whatever you desire.

Your turn.

 

[remez]

Rhea,

Thank you for responding. There was something in there to really chew on.

First this MAJOR caveat. I’m not twisting what you think. I’m not telling you what you believe. I’m analyzing and discussing the reason you put forth. That is what reasoning is all about. Yet every time I do that you and others immaturely bemoan that I telling you what you think or twisting what you think. I’m not, I’m properly trying to discuss what you said. With an “owned arrogance” to promote an assertive discussion….positively (and I sincerely mean positively) taught to me by Wiploc.
NOW…..
If I analyzed something of your reasoning incorrectly then by all means point it out (that’s what reasoning is all about) instead of crying about it. So basically I’m asking for a mature discussion about the reasoning here without you playing the victim all the time. You guys continually support your victimhood status against proper discussion of the reasoning. Hence my continual reference to the atheist cuddle huddle shenanigans.
Because………………….
There is really something in this ……….

Refusing to answer this question based on IDK is a refusing to reason, because I’m not asking for absolute certainty. You would then be in the less reasonable position.

Nope. That is absolutely false. To claim a reason because you “have to” choose sides is a fallacy. As a person who experiments for a living, that is not what we do. “The universe behaves differently than everything in the universe and there’s a magic “god” who drives it,” is NOT the Null Hypothesis.

But again, since all i’m finding interest in is HOW you think, that’s an interesting bit of evidence in how you think.

……. to discuss. Ironically YOU finally did choose sides. We’ll get to that in a moment.

No fallacy at all. But please feel free to present your case that it is. Simple assertion of fallacy is simple minded.

My efforts there were to create exhaustive list of possibilities we all have to choose from. Either the A) universe began to exist or B) it do not and therefore is eternal Possibly C) volitional or emotional skepticism……refusing to choose. Examine YES or NO or REFUSAL. What other possibilities are there?
And
After complaining about my reasoning anyway….you ironically DID chose…….

Nothing comes from nothing. It is more reasonable that it was always there. You have said nothing that changes that.

……..B.
And….and….and…… you thankfully provided you reason for your choice.
So
Let the discussion begin. Logically for you and I…… C is off the table.
I have provided scientific evidence (expanding universe, 2 LoT, red shift, SBBM, CMRB, BGV, and the failure of dozens of models to render the universe eternal, etc) for reasoning (rewind the physics and you cannot escape that the universe is approximately 13.7 biilons years old and had a beginning) why the universe began.
Now you……
You provided ….

Nothing comes from nothing. It is more reasonable that it was always there. You have said nothing that changes that.

…..choice B and reasoning.

You believe that the universe is eternal because “nothing comes from nothing”.
But
I believe that the universe is past finite and also believe “nothing comes from nothing”
Thus………………
There still remains between us some implicit reasoning yet to be made explicit.
Therefore…
Here is my attempt to get at that reasoning…..

Now again this is my analysis of what you reasoned….. You recognize the incredible implications of what a beginning would entail. First and for most, a cause would be needed. But that cause could not be natural because nature itself could not cause itself. And science won’t be able to help you here if you were only looking for a natural explanation. But…if you were looking for ONLY a natural explanation….a material cause…..you would then be begging to question to your ends. And that would be a fallacy.
So for you……
It is easier to believe against the science (have faith) that it was eternal then to defend all of the overt problems you would face if the universe began to exist. It’s easier for you to fling insults at theists disguised as reasoning because it will be supported by the others in the cuddle huddle, providing the pseudo-security that your reasoning by insults is the correct approach. Against me ….it’s not. I will make you defend your reasoning. Your insults add favor to the roasting of your reasoning.
For me…….
I completely embrace the scientific evidence and the reasoning that the universe began to exist. I don’t have an issue with nature beginning to exist because I’m not philosophically limiting the cause to a material cause, like you. The universe beginning from nothing would still require and efficient cause. I not begging the question for a material cause. As a matter of fact I’m reasoning that there was no material cause because material like the universe began to exist. Thus material could not create itself. That would be even worse than magic. And once established that this universe needs a cause then I could reason further for immaterial, timeless, spaceless, efficient cause. You cannot because you have philosophically begged the question for a nature/material only cause in a situation where nature/material could not create itself.
Now
If I wrong there and projecting anything upon your reasoning that is unreasonable then by all means lets discuss it. If you find fault in my reasoning for my case….present it. Because so far your only reason that “nothing comes from nothing” supports us both and thus cannot render your position more reasonable.
Because,
As it sits right now you are the one believing against all of the science and reasoning I have provide for my position. I have more science on my side. And the only reasoning you offered for your position supports both of us. Therefore…… You are in the less reasonable position.
Thus ……
I have evidence and reason for what I believe. Which is all I’m trying to establish here. I’m not trying to convince you God exists. Just trying to show you that I have evidence and reason that he does.

 

[remez]

Remez previously presented his argument in this thread: Theological Fine Tuning:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13832-Theological-Fine-Tuning

Basically, it boils down to this:
1. Based on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a past-finite universe is more likely than a past-infinite universe.
2. Therefore, the KCA is sound.

My objection then, as now, is that it is incorrect to conclude from the BGV theorem that a past finite universe is more likely, and that the only conclusion we can reasonably make at this point is that we don't know either way.

Remez likes to quote the opinion of Alexander Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem, who believes that the universe is most likely past-finite. This is pointless, because one of the other authors, Alan Guth, believes that the universe is most likely past-infinite. The BGV theorem doesn't prove either of them correct.

He doesn't appear to have made any progress since then.

Be fair.
Because...................

Basically, it boils down to this:
1. Based on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, a past-finite universe is more likely than a past-infinite universe.
2. Therefore, the KCA is sound.

......was only a discussion on one piece of evidence, not basically the reductive baseline.

But thanks for the memory.

 

[skepticalbip]

p1 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
p2 The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.

p1 is an unsupported assertion belied by the reality of quantum fluctuations.

p2 is also an unsupported assertion.

C is a conclusion that is logically valid assuming p1 and p2 but not necessarily true since p1 and p2 are only assertions, not proven truths.


example:
p1. All Canadians are homosexuals.
p2. John is Canadian.
C. John is homosexual.

A logically valid conclusion assuming p1 and p2. The question is if the premises p1 and p2 are true. Are all Canadians really homosexuals? Is John really a Canadian?