Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[abaddon]

... I welcome opposition, but you must defend your counters as reasonable. Every one of them. You don’t just get to say something is wrong and not defend it. That’s where we will battle over the epistemologies. The core of ones worldview.

Your assertion is classic question begging and utterly unsupportable with any evidence whatsoever.

Meaningless unless you can actually back it up with sound reasoning.

That request would seem reasonable, except it's kind of a setup. And "meaningless" is false; you know the meaning already.

You are acting as if this line of argument is new but it has a history and how it goes is already known. (What's that brain injury where every day seems like a new day to the injured person? Theists are like that with their arguments).

You've staged another "battle" to show your faith is well-reasoned and that atheism (or naturalism or materialism) is not as well-reasoned. People can play the game with you if they want, or they can summarize the conclusion of how it always goes if they want. A summary conclusion when the argument's already known isn't unreason.

Here's how things will go eventually (again). Atheists won't be convinced and not because they're blinded by science as you'll want to believe, but because you need definitions to be just so or your argument doesn't work. Which is rather the problem with figuring out the whole of existence with mere words. Eventually the word wrangling will become repeated assertions on your part... probably "all material existence does have an absolute beginning!" You'll be upset with atheist's "don't know" -- theists always are because they're all about holding to beliefs that are a "best explanation" (yet choose a myth-based one). You'll want how the argument comes to an impasse to look like everyone else's fault; it's because they're too prejudiced by their worldview. That your assertions... er, logical conclusions... aren't convincing will be a "score".

Everyone that wants to do this should go ahead and enjoy. But if someone doesn't necessarily want to get into the details of it and instead summarizes what they know of it already, it is not an example of unreason.

 

[remez]

Your assertion is classic question begging and utterly unsupportable with any evidence whatsoever.

Meaningless unless you can actually back it up with sound reasoning.

That request would seem reasonable if it wasn't sophistry. The assertion is not meaningless. You damn well know the meaning already.

I have heard a couple different versions for this “circular reasoning” objection. All thus far lack the reasoning to remain credible. Perhaps joedad can provide one that is reasonable.

You've staged another "battle" to show your faith is well-reasoned and that atheism (or naturalism or materialism) is not as well-reasoned.

Not exactly. I’m reacting (not staging) to the notion that there is a battle between science and Christianity. I assert that the real battle is actually a battle of worldviews and which is better supported by science.

I was challenged that my “approach” begins with a mythical book. I offered evidence to the contrary. You then entered and …??? …. I’m still trying to figure that out because I can’t see where you are connecting to the context. Sorry.

Here's how things will go eventually. Atheists won't be convinced and not because they're blinded by science as you'll want it to look, but because you need definitions to be just so or your argument doesn't work.

First, I don’t think atheists are blinded by science. I believe you embrace it as enthusiastically as I do.
Second, for you to assume atheists have no role in the word salad is “NOTHING” but arrogant.

Things will stall and you'll never get past it to how the supernatural cause is Jehovah.

For my case here I’m fine with just an unidentified supernatural cause.

And you'll want that to look like everyone else's fault because they're prejudiced by their worldview.

I’m not looking for fault. I am trying to show that science better supports theism. You stand opposed to that. So your worldview better supported by science… how??…that’s right I forgot….. by default? I’m trying to make a case and you once again simply stand there and claim you are right by default. Don’t examine the details because we’ll just blame the word salad on remez, thus supporting your case by default.

I’m sorry but I don’t see your position as reasonable. But be careful, if you object to my possible straw man, you may have to get into the some details and actually have to defend something.

And that's probably an OK conclusion for you, since the unreason of atheists is the point of all this.

Almost. It’s an ok conclusion for me, since the default “approach” of yours is the point of this response.

 

[PyramidHead]

Actually, this is by no means settled. The observable universe in our 13.8 billion light-year radius had a beginning, but we have no reason to believe this represents "all space, time, matter and energy".

Completely overstated. By far the most plausible outcome from all we know is that the universe began to exist.

There could very easily be a larger manifold in which these things exist, currently beyond our ability to access. The larger reality in which our observable universe may reside could itself have a beginning, or no beginning.

Now who is believing in myths? The observations we have and the BGV theorem infer that even your mythical manifold would need a beginning. No Bible required to counter your mythical alternative. That was science. Remember my larger context….science and theism are compatible.

From Creation Wiki:

The 2003 paper outlining the BGV theorem, "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete" highlights the finding of a space-time boundary at the inflation event. The paper asks if it is even possible if inflationary universes could be past-eternal as opposed to future-eternal only. If this can be so then there is a "viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist."[4]

There are also multiple alternatives to this theorem, including cyclic models, that have yet to be ruled out experimentally. It doesn't matter very much anyway, because the inferences you draw from the universe having begun are where the real problems arise.

Thus I’m asserting the nature had a complete beginning, all space, time, matter and energy began to exist. (Supported by logic)Thus a cause it needed. (Supported by logic)

This is not supported by logic. For it to be supported by logic, you need an extra premise: everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Yes I was referring to the law of causality, as indicated my presented approach was much abbreviated. Abbreviated because my main issue here is not this case, but that the real debate here is between worldviews, not science vs Christianity.

However, even if you include this premise the argument fails, because the truth of the premise is itself unupported. For one thing, we have never seen something begin to exist, strictly speaking. Everything we have seen 'begin' actually was just a reconfiguration of existing parts. We have never seen something begin to exist where nothing existed before, so we have no reason to think a cause is necessary in that situation.

Do you realize that you are espousing mereological nihilism? It’s an escape too far. The problem with your philosophy of mereological nihilism is you don’t exist. It’s a well-known bad philosophy from the BEGINNING. Look it up. Just to save you some time….It’s not in the Bible.

Ehh... you seem to have an -ism and a corresponding handwaving dismissal for everything that your argument can't cope with. How about this: show me something that begun to exist in the way that you are claiming the universe begun to exist, i.e. without being made of things that already exist. If the law of causality applies in both cases, this should be a cinch. Can you do it?

Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused.

Are you referring to quantum indeterminism? Because being indeterminate certainly does not imply being uncaused.

Fair enough. But it also doesn't rule out being uncaused, and that's all we need to put the law of causality into doubt.

...

You seem to have sneakily snipped out a very important objection I raised without attempting to address it, and moved onto the next point. Let me see if I can find it for you.

You have often used the term 'categorical fallacy' in this thread. I believe that asserting the cause of any phenomenon to be 'timeless' is such a fallacy. The concept of causation is inextricably tied to the concept of time. Causes must come before their effects. It cannot therefore be coherently said that anything caused time itself to begin, because it would have had to take place 'beforehand', which is a contradiction in terms as it would require the existence of the very thing whose creation is being explained.

Secondly, your assertion that something 'incredibly powerful' must have been the cause is not supported by anything, least of all forensics. All of our estimations of how much power is required to do something are based on observations made in the universe, in the context of laws and magnitudes that presumably would not apply outside of that context. We know it would take an incredibly strong force to break a planet in half because within our universe, there are fundamental forces keeping things like planets together. Without any larger context to set limits on what can and cannot be done, nothing about power can be asserted... again, it's a category error.

These two points show that your move from the universe had a beginning to the universe was created by a powerful being who exists outside of time doesn't work. Thus the whole thing doesn't work. Can you address these points?

I’m asserting the cause had to be beyond nature, which is what I mean by supernatural. (Supported by logic)
Inferring the cause of the universe to be God, who transcends nature…..definition 1 from above not 2. (Supported by logic)

One last time, I have to stop you. Your last clause there, "God, who transcends nature" is written as if God is already proven to exist and to have the characteristic of transcending nature. No such proof is implicit in your argument or any other, as far as I know. God may or may not exist, and may or may not transcend nature in either case.

This is an issue regarding order of operations. And you have turned that order around on me. It was an easy misinterpretation to make. Please allow me an attempt to clarify.

Specifically what you quoted of my general approach right there was not part of the argument. It was a post conclusion comment to address my meaning of supernatural. So prior to the very last step of the argument the premise is that the “cause” must transcend nature not God. The conclusion is that the description of the cause directly matches the theistic understanding of God. No circular reasoning exists in the argument itself.

Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.

Cute. So if I wrote down a description that more closely matched this God than the Bible does, you would adopt it?

I’ll listen.
What do you have?

You missed the gist. I was mocking your reasoning, namely the notion that we should give a rat's ass about what descriptions people have made about God. Anybody can make a description of anything. And countless religions have described powerful beings outside of the mundane world who conjured everything into being. But those could just be stories born from people's mistaken reasoning about beginnings and power; in other words, they could be making the same mistakes as you.

I should point out the irony that forensic science is actually the examination of a crime scene, which is about the best that can be said of your argument, I'm afraid.

I really have no problem perceiving it that way. That’s my favorite flavor of investigation. But all I really meant there was to narrow the focus of distinction between operational science and origin science.

The problem is that none of what you presented accords with scientific evidence except for the notion that the universe had a beginning, which is still yet to be conclusively demonstrated.

You are completely under selling the science here. That is like saying other than we have the murderer on video committing the crime, and the gun, bullet ballistics and other actually testimonies of eyewitness also providing motive……you have no case. Because he didn’t confess.

I don't think I'm being unreasonably skeptical in saying that may be a slight exaggeration of the strength of your position. What you have essentially done here is started from a potentially plausible scientific hypothesis, that the universe had a beginning, and then constructed a series of inferences based purely on your own assumptions about how things should work, no doubt deeply ingrained in you from your Christian upbringing. And then, lo and behold, it turns out that this trail of lily-pads just happens to lead to the religion you were already indoctrinated in. You keep the science terminology around to help you get out of a pinch, but you actually don't use any science to come to your conclusion. And my comment was about your argument, not about the universe itself, being like a crime scene: grisly, tragic, and suggestive of foul play.

So I will ask you one simple question, and I need you to answer it honestly. Your answer will illustrate whether you are actually a person who follows evidence, or someone who defers to a holy book. Here is my question.
If it were conclusively proven that the universe had no beginning, would you renounce your belief in Christianity?

Your overt false dilemma only presents your misunderstanding of my worldview.

The evidence of a finite universe is but one of many evidences and arguments that provide me with good reason to believe God exists. Even more non-Biblical reasons supported by science.

If this were the only evidence I had and it turned out to be incorrect, than I would doubt my belief.

Think about it….If I were to ask you…..If conclusively, the universe had a complete beginning would you renounce your worldview? Because the science is seriously, pretty “Planck” close too conclusive on that.

Be fair and answer.

Of course I wouldn't, because the fact that the universe had a beginning doesn't imply that it was created by anyone, much less a particular God out of the thousands that have been invented. All I would renounce is my doubt that the universe didn't have a beginning.

 

[Learner]

From Creation Wiki:

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem]The 2003 paper outlining the BGV theorem, "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete" highlights the finding of a space-time boundary at the inflation event. The paper asks if it is even possible if inflationary universes could be past-eternal as opposed to future-eternal only. If this can be so then there is a "viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist."[4]

I would be eager to know whether from Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's paper defines the universe as the "physical universe"/ "physical matter" we know and understand it as.."always existing" or does it mean that the great "vaccum of space" has always existed whereby physical matter can then appear and "disappear" by what ever a "natural universe process" supposedly does?

What is problamatic by "simply existing"; is finding the explanation if this thorem includes the little physical matter compared to the great vast space - can incredibly attract to other scarse physical matter from such great distances (beyond the weak gravitational forces) to form clusters and then planets. By this seemingly flawed notion alone would perhaps then also suggest that ALL matter would end up eventually in a great unfathomable ball.

 

[PyramidHead]

From Creation Wiki:

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem]The 2003 paper outlining the BGV theorem, "Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete" highlights the finding of a space-time boundary at the inflation event. The paper asks if it is even possible if inflationary universes could be past-eternal as opposed to future-eternal only. If this can be so then there is a "viable model of the Universe with no initial singularity. The Universe would never come into existence. It would simply exist."[4]

I would be eager to know whether from Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's paper defines the universe as the "physical universe"/ "physical matter" we know and understand it as.."always existing" or does it mean that the great "vaccum of space" has always existed whereby physical matter can then appear (and disappear) by what ever a "natural universe process" supposedly does?

What is problamatic by "simply existing"; is finding the explanation if this thorem includes the little physical matter compared to the great vast space - can incredibly attract to other scarse physical matter from great distances (beyond the weak gravitational forces) to form clusters and then planets. By this seemingly flawed notion alone would perhaps then suggest ALL matter would end up eventually in a great unfathomable ball.

I'm not a physicist, so I don't know. And from everything I have gathered in my limited investigation, physicists don't know either.

Conceptually, the key idea that relates to this topic is that people may be committing a basic error when they imagine the absence of all matter and energy as a kind of empty 'nothingness'. The lack of a universe may be better imagined as an unpredictable chaos rather than a blank slate. Starting from this, it becomes less daunting to figure out how fluctuations in this chaos could compound upon themselves. But nobody really knows, and I doubt anyone will ever know.

 

[Learner]

I'm not a physicist either . I was just curious how they came to the conclusion even from my limited understanding.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would be eager to know whether from Borde-Guth-Vilenkin's paper defines the universe as the "physical universe"/ "physical matter" we know and understand it as.."always existing" or does it mean that the great "vaccum of space" has always existed whereby physical matter can then appear (and disappear) by what ever a "natural universe process" supposedly does?

What is problamatic by "simply existing"; is finding the explanation if this thorem includes the little physical matter compared to the great vast space - can incredibly attract to other scarse physical matter from great distances (beyond the weak gravitational forces) to form clusters and then planets. By this seemingly flawed notion alone would perhaps then suggest ALL matter would end up eventually in a great unfathomable ball.

I'm not a physicist, so I don't know. And from everything I have gathered in my limited investigation, physicists don't know either.

Conceptually, the key idea that relates to this topic is that people may be committing a basic error when they imagine the absence of all matter and energy as a kind of empty 'nothingness'. The lack of a universe may be better imagined as an unpredictable chaos rather than a blank slate. Starting from this, it becomes less daunting to figure out how fluctuations in this chaos could compound upon themselves. But nobody really knows, and I doubt anyone will ever know.

It might be revealing to listen to pre schoolers discuss Santa and the Tooth Fairy and magic the same way. For example they might discuss how Santa's reindeer are able to fly. They might discuss where Santa came from. They might discuss how Santa knows if they've been bad or how Rudolph's nose can glow red. And to know we would have done exactly the same thing at their age is quite revealing as well. Their answers - our answers at that age and level of knowledge - are a window into the same questions being asked here.

What is an "unfathomable" ball? Sounds religious to me because religion requires human ignorance. Has "nothingness" ever been observed? Most people equate nothingness with a quantity of zero but they are not the same. To have a zero quantity of anything, you must have a quantity greater than zero somewhere or the concept is nonsensical.

Physics is not semantics. Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought. Use secular language to describe anything religious and the religious magic is revealed for the institutionalized ignorance that it is.

Santa is pretend. That's what the kids should know. They should know it grew out of an older tradition common to people of these latitudes who watched the sun and knew the days would be getting longer, food would become available again, etc. But Santa is easier for kids at this stage of learning. At one point all of humanity operated on the same intellectual level as these kids.

There are no "unfathomable" balls. There are no spooky magic spacemen. There is no abracadabra. What there is most certainly is a lot of questioning and a lot of pretending when an answer is not obvious.

 

[Shadowy Man]

That is one philosophical perspective on the supernatural. Here is another. We cannot directly observe what is beyond nature. But we can directly study the effect (universe) to determine the characteristics of its cause. Origin science?

I don't really know what you mean by "beyond nature". To me, if it something that we can study and know about why wouldn't you call it "nature".

Also….Why should we assume just because we can’t directly observe the cause that the cause cannot directly observe us?

I can't even logically parse what it would mean for a "cause" to "observe us". This makes no sense to me.

If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural.

Percisley. “Interact”…like it is the “cause”? It is unreasonable to reason that the cause of the universe is the universe itself. That is self-creation, which is logically untenable.

You are assuming the universe was created. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Thus the cause (interaction) must logically be something beyond our universe/nature. Hence supernatural.

Classic cart before the horse.

For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature.

Why assume that causes (surpernatural) must operate in the same manner as their effects (nature)?
Henry Ford vs the Model-A.
Na and Cl vs NaCl.

I do not understand what you are getting at here. Na and Cl are both natural, as is NaCl. There is a process for converting them and we consider that process natural.

 

[PyramidHead]

Quibble:

To have a zero quantity of anything, you must have a quantity greater than zero somewhere or the concept is nonsensical.

I don't think that's true, because there are zero integers between 3 and 4. And there are zero gods.

/quibble

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Quibble:

To have a zero quantity of anything, you must have a quantity greater than zero somewhere or the concept is nonsensical.

I don't think that's true, because there are zero integers between 3 and 4. And there are zero gods.

/quibble

Those are abstractions. You are equating what is written onto the paper with the paper. I can have zero words that say god, and zero symbols that we call integers written on paper, just like I can have zero zeros on the same paper.

 

[PyramidHead]

Quibble:



I don't think that's true, because there are zero integers between 3 and 4. And there are zero gods.

/quibble

Those are abstractions. You are equating what is written onto the paper with the paper. I can have zero words that say god, and zero symbols that we call integers written on paper, just like I can have zero zeros on the same paper.

Okay, but there are actually zero gods, and that doesn't require there to be a nonzero quantity of gods somewhere else.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Those are abstractions. You are equating what is written onto the paper with the paper. I can have zero words that say god, and zero symbols that we call integers written on paper, just like I can have zero zeros on the same paper.

Okay, but there are actually zero gods, and that doesn't require there to be a nonzero quantity of gods somewhere else.

In everyday communication, sure.

If you objectify communication, take a sound or gesture or scribble that communicates information and make it into it's own object separate from what it represents, there are zero gods. Religion does a lot of that. The word god is a good example. Then you can get into all sorts of semantic silliness and talk about angels on pinheads until the cows come home.

Can I have nothing and then also have zero nothing? When you say zero gods, what is that? Can I have zero zeros? Is zero descriptive or isn't it?

If you are using the word god to describe a human behavior, which is its origin, then you can have zero gods. It's why I prefer to use words other than god to describe what people are talking about. Most people in the west are talking about a magic spaceman when they say god, and there are certainly zero magic spacemen.

Do you equate zero with nothing?

 

[remez]

There are also multiple alternatives to this theorem, including cyclic models, that have yet to be ruled out experimentally.

Cyclic myths fail for two different reasons. Look it up. Because, if I tell you how you’ll simply claim I’m hand waving and dismissing you. Once again it’s not in the Bible.
Here is the real kicker to these mythical story models….. how would you experiment on them?

Ehh... you seem to have an -ism and a corresponding handwaving dismissal for everything that your argument can't cope with.

Let’s review this point…. You suggested a counter to my law of causality premise. You did not give it a name, but simply described it as follows; we have observed that nothing begins to exist because everything is just rearranged sub particles.

I replied (countering your counter) by giving you its proper name and informed you that it’s defunct philosophy. I provided facts, not hand waving. Thus it’s an unreasonable counter to my premise.

You then replied, offering no support for your counter, but instead attacked my method of countering you with the facts and dismissed me with simple hand waving. No facts were provided, I was simply dismissed.

So again…………

Just how does your ridiculous mereological nihilism create a problem that the law of causality can’t cope with? Here is your chance to support your counter, instead of just crying about me attacking your it.

Remember…

I warned you before beginning. If you are going to offer some opposition to my position, it needs to be defended. I simply countered your ridiculous counter with obvious reasoning. That is not hand waving. That is debate. You don’t just get to throw bad reasoning at my position and claim victory without a fight.

These two points show that your move from the universe had a beginning to the universe was created by a powerful being who exists outside of time doesn't work. Thus the whole thing doesn't work. Can you address these points?

No..

The concept of causation is inextricably tied to the concept of time. Causes must come before their effects. It cannot therefore be coherently said that anything caused time itself to begin, because it would have had to take place 'beforehand', which is a contradiction in terms as it would require the existence of the very thing whose creation is being explained.

Replace ‘beforehand’ with ‘simultaneous’ thus no contradiction.
And…

All of our estimations of how much power is required to do something are based on observations made in the universe, in the context of laws and magnitudes that presumably would not apply outside of that context.

Yes I’m looking at the entire product, universe/nature, and reasonably concluding that the cause must have been powerful. Just simply look at the entire product. How can you reasonably deny that its cause must have been powerful? You are welcome to deny the obvious and jump off the train off reason.

Very generally that is my case. No Bible required other than recognizing that the forensic list of characteristics of the cause match a description of the Biblical God.

Cute. So if I wrote down a description that more closely matched this God than the Bible does, you would adopt it?

I’ll listen. What do you have?

You missed the gist. I was mocking your reasoning,

No you missed the gist that I was mocking you right back.

Anybody can make a description of anything. And countless religions have described powerful beings outside of the mundane world who conjured everything into being. But those could just be stories born from people's mistaken reasoning about beginnings and power; in other words, they could be making the same mistakes as you.

Again you are actually missing a few points here.

First, follow the order of reasoning. My argument, first by science and reasoning, establishes that the universe needs a cause and that cause must have certain characteristics. Characteristics determined by proper reasoning. That predetermined list is then finally matched the Biblical God. Yes you may disagree with the Biblical description of God but that does not affect the scientific and philosophical support that has already been established. Just like picking out the guilty party matching the characteristics of the crime. They can study the way a bomb has been constructed and determine the most likely creator. Also…. Do you know enough about the Biblical God even to make such an assertion? You unreasonably keep conflating the Biblical God to the polytheistic gods to make your point.

So……………

Secondly, that reasoned predetermined list of characteristics of the cause eliminates all those other non-Biblical “religions”. Think about it. Your thousand gods meme is unreasonable if the universe began to exist. Only theism remains. Science eliminates all those wrong ideas including atheism. Again science supports theism. You simply default science to atheism, without defense.

Thirdly…. You seem to be continually asserting that since the Biblical God was the end goal, then the pursuit of evidence was illegitimate. Try this….. Einstein theorized the gravity bends light. He then sought out a way to prove it. Eclipse…etc. Now you seem to be reasoning that you can’t scientifically pursue a theory. Natural theology is the same pursuit, just not limited to natural causes only.

What you have essentially done here is started from a potentially plausible scientific hypothesis,

Yes of course. Thank you for observing that. For now at least. But………….

What you have essentially done here is started from a potentially plausible scientific hypothesis, that the universe had a beginning, and then constructed a series of inferences based purely on your own assumptions about how things should work,

What assumptions? Put some facts to where your accusations are. Until you do so this remains another one of your unsupported mythical beliefs. You sound more like the caricature of your dumb Christian.

You keep the science terminology around to help you get out of a pinch, but you actually don't use any science to come to your conclusion.

Yes I stand guilty of using science and good philosophy to oppose your myths and bad philosophies. But I ask you…..what’s wrong with that?

Really………I don’t actually use science??????????? Lets investigate.

First, just a moment ago you rightly acknowledged my scientific support and now you deny that I even use science.

Secondly….Who here is using science and good philosophy and who is not? I’m overtly standing on the foundation of the SBBM, and all of its’ included scientific evidences vs your cyclic myth. I have used the BGV theorem to counter to your manifold myth. To my law of causality support you countered with mereological nihilism. You even suggested that indeterminism implies the effect was uncaused. And that short synopsis demonstrates that science and good philosophy better support my worldview over yours. So far.

Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused.

Are you referring to quantum indeterminism? Because being indeterminate certainly does not imply being uncaused.

Fair enough. But it also doesn't rule out being uncaused, and that's all we need to put the law of causality into doubt.

If you want to jump of the train of reason to make your point then I be my guest. Your jump further supports my position that science better supports Christianity.

 

[remez]

From 107

Physics is not semantics.

I concur.

Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought.

And your side as well. Karl Sagan’s famous quote… The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be….. is not a statement of physics. It is an assertion of his worldview based on the physics.

Steven Hawking’s Grand Design…..Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going…..the same.

Lawrence Krause’s foundational definition of “nothing” is laughable, rendering theory laughable as well. I can go on. But the point is…..you “atheists just assume your side is pure and untouched by the standards you hold to us. Open your eyes.

This is a battle of worldviews. It is not a battle of science vs Christianity. It is a battle of which worldview is better supported by science.

 

[remez]

From 108

I don't really know what you mean by "beyond nature". To me, if it something that we can study and know about why wouldn't you call it "nature".

I agree with you to the point you can study nature. That is what science does. But you are limited to the assumption that only nature exists. My reasoning logically concludes that nature began to exist and needs a cause. I also logically reason the nature could not cause itself to exist. Thus the cause of nature is beyond nature itself.

Imagine you have found a dead body lying face down in a pool of his own blood, in the middle of the locked room with a knife in the middle of his back. You have also have a trail of larger bloody footprints of the victim’s blood leaving the room. You also have a matching set of fingerprints (not belonging to the victim) on the knife and the door lock. Now are you going to theorize that you will find the murderer in the room? You are saying here that only the room exists. I asking you to simply follow the trail of inference in the room that leads out of the room.

If it can interact with the known universe then we'd have to figure out a way to determine that it isn't natural.

Percisley. “Interact”…like it is the “cause”? It is unreasonable to reason that the cause of the universe is the universe itself. That is self-creation, which is logically untenable.

You are assuming the universe was created. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Not exactly. My term of self-creation is common pedagogy. I’m just as comfortable using the term self-caused here. No assumption of creation.

Thus the cause (interaction) must logically be something beyond our universe/nature. Hence supernatural.

Classic cart before the horse.

How so?
Which alternative do you espouse?

This time you tell me….. Could nature have caused itself?

Because…………

If yes then you are abandoning reason.
If no then reasonably its cause was from beyond nature.

Choose a horse or name some other.

All you are doing is asserting that the most reasonable option is wrong because you can only find the answer inside the box. How do you account for this universe? Don’t be afraid to share and defend your worldview. Show some courage man.

For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature.

Why assume that causes (surpernatural) must operate in the same manner as their effects (nature)?
Henry Ford vs the Model-A.
Na and Cl vs NaCl.

I do not understand what you are getting at here. Na and Cl are both natural, as is NaCl. There is a process for converting them and we consider that process natural.

You seemed to be objecting that causes cannot operate in violation of their effect. So I questioned why you would think they needed to behave in the same manner. And gave two examples that demonstrated that the causes did not behave in the same manner as there effect. So I was wrong in what I thought you were saying. So what did you mean by ….

For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

From 107

I concur.

Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought.

And your side as well. Karl Sagan’s famous quote… The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be….. is not a statement of physics. It is an assertion of his worldview based on the physics.

Steven Hawking’s Grand Design…..Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going…..the same.

Lawrence Krause’s foundational definition of “nothing” is laughable, rendering theory laughable as well. I can go on. But the point is…..you “atheists just assume your side is pure and untouched by the standards you hold to us. Open your eyes.

This is a battle of worldviews. It is not a battle of science vs Christianity. It is a battle of which worldview is better supported by science.

Sagan would concur that people having thoughts about magic spacemen is certainly part of the cosmos. But he would not include magic spacemen as part of the cosmos. I'm not up on Hawking and nothing, but Krauss essentially distinguishes between nothing and zero, same as myself, then goes on to become all flowery.

I don't see a battle of worldviews, just fact vs fantasy, knowledge vs feel-good, religious drivel, natural selection operating in an environment. People love fantasy, but kids outgrow their fantastic Claus because they begin to collect facts, those who can. I've met 50 year olds who fervently believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because they are mentally impaired. That's observational proof enough for me that magic spacemen are symptoms of differing mental development, not magic spacemen.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I agree with you to the point you can study nature. That is what science does. But you are limited to the assumption that only nature exists. My reasoning logically concludes that nature began to exist and needs a cause. I also logically reason the nature could not cause itself to exist. Thus the cause of nature is beyond nature itself.

I do not assume that nature has a cause.

You assume that nature has a cause and that cause cannot be nature. Therefore there is supernature. But what caused supernature? I don't see a solution so much as a transfer of the problem to a different realm.

Not exactly. My term of self-creation is common pedagogy. I’m just as comfortable using the term self-caused here. No assumption of creation.

I'm not hung up on the word "creation". Use whatever term you want.

Thus the cause (interaction) must logically be something beyond our universe/nature. Hence supernatural.

Classic cart before the horse.

How so?
Which alternative do you espouse?

This time you tell me….. Could nature have caused itself?

Maybe it has no cause. It just is.

Because…………

If yes then you are abandoning reason.
If no then reasonably its cause was from beyond nature.

Choose a horse or name some other.

You chose a supernatural horse and I'll ask what caused *that* horse?

How do you account for this universe? Don’t be afraid to share and defend your worldview. Show some courage man.

Why do I have to "account" for this universe? Maybe it just is. Maybe before 14.7 billion years ago, the universe was in a different state. But it still just was. If it was supernatural before then how does that answer any question? Where did that come from?

For me, then, the "supernatural" would have to operate in *violation* of nature.

Why assume that causes (surpernatural) must operate in the same manner as their effects (nature)?
Henry Ford vs the Model-A.
Na and Cl vs NaCl.

I do not understand what you are getting at here. Na and Cl are both natural, as is NaCl. There is a process for converting them and we consider that process natural.

You seemed to be objecting that causes cannot operate in violation of their effect. So I questioned why you would think they needed to behave in the same manner. And gave two examples that demonstrated that the causes did not behave in the same manner as there effect.

It seems to me that you're saying this, and please correct me if I'm not understanding you correctly: nature follows cause and effect, therefore it can't cause itself. Supernature doesn't have to follow cause and effect so it can cause nature. And because supernature doesn't follow cause and effect I don't have to account for the supernatural. At least that's how your argument is coming across to me, and it is very unsatisfying because it's basically just an unsupported assertion being made to tie up some logical problem you're having about nature.

 

[PyramidHead]

Cyclic myths fail for two different reasons. Look it up. Because, if I tell you how you’ll simply claim I’m hand waving and dismissing you. Once again it’s not in the Bible.
Here is the real kicker to these mythical story models….. how would you experiment on them?

Actually, if you tell me then it would be precisely the opposite of handwaving, which is what you are doing now by saying "one of the things you suggested is wrong and I'm not going to explain why". That's called handwaving. My doubts about reality having a beginning do not hinge on the success of any particular theory, because as I said, there are multiple alternatives (and why should any of them be in the Bible?).

Ehh... you seem to have an -ism and a corresponding handwaving dismissal for everything that your argument can't cope with.

Let’s review this point…. You suggested a counter to my law of causality premise. You did not give it a name, but simply described it as follows; we have observed that nothing begins to exist because everything is just rearranged sub particles.

I replied (countering your counter) by giving you its proper name and informed you that it’s defunct philosophy. I provided facts, not hand waving.

No, what you provided is the definition of handwaving--rather than answer my challenge, you labeled it with something you are comfortable dismissing without argument. Answer my challenge, please, or admit that you do not have an answer: name something that began to exist in the way you think the universe began to exist, i.e. not by rearranging things that already exist. My position is not a nihilism about objects, but an attack on the idea that you can reason from an observation about objects that begin via rearrangement of matter and apply it to objects that began from nothing. It's another way of saying, the statement 'the universe must have had a beginning because everything has a beginning' is false, because the word 'beginning' does not mean the same thing both times it is used.

The concept of causation is inextricably tied to the concept of time. Causes must come before their effects. It cannot therefore be coherently said that anything caused time itself to begin, because it would have had to take place 'beforehand', which is a contradiction in terms as it would require the existence of the very thing whose creation is being explained.

Replace ‘beforehand’ with ‘simultaneous’ thus no contradiction.

I'm afraid that simply won't do. Simultaneity is just as time-bound as past and future are. Simultaneous means "at the same time as". What you are saying here is that the creation of the universe is something that took place at a specific time, which contradicts your earlier claim that it happened outside of time.

Apart from that, you're giving up on causation itself if you insist on simultaneity, because causes and effects are not simultaneous. In fact, time is required for anything whatsoever to even happen, including obviously something as momentous as the creation of the universe.

All of our estimations of how much power is required to do something are based on observations made in the universe, in the context of laws and magnitudes that presumably would not apply outside of that context.

Yes I’m looking at the entire product, universe/nature, and reasonably concluding that the cause must have been powerful. Just simply look at the entire product. How can you reasonably deny that its cause must have been powerful? You are welcome to deny the obvious and jump off the train off reason.

It's by no means obvious to me. Creating a lot of matter in a short period of time seems hard because we live in a universe where matter is finite and time is required to get things done. Why should a situation where neither of these restrictions apply prevent anyone from creating as many universes as they like, power or not? This is a minor point, of course. But it shows how human-centric your argument is.

First, follow the order of reasoning. My argument, first by science and reasoning, establishes that the universe needs a cause and that cause must have certain characteristics. Characteristics determined by proper reasoning.

Just not in any way you can demonstrate or defend.

That predetermined list is then finally matched the Biblical God.

This is the step that bothers me. Why would you look for any particular version of God, in any book, to "match" it to? If your reasoning is correct, then it only proves what the premises set out to prove. This "matching" business is a secondary step. Furthermore, the Biblical God and the stories of how he made things scarcely resemble even the result of your tortured special pleading. You have to take so much of it as allegorical, and the parts that support your idea are no less vague than the parts that are supposed to be figurative. It's a non-starter, which is why nobody bothers to do it except Christian apologists. In fact, most physicists who look to ancient texts for corroboration tend to find the most accurate match with their theories in Taoism.

Yes you may disagree with the Biblical description of God but that does not affect the scientific and philosophical support that has already been established. Just like picking out the guilty party matching the characteristics of the crime. They can study the way a bomb has been constructed and determine the most likely creator. Also…. Do you know enough about the Biblical God even to make such an assertion? You unreasonably keep conflating the Biblical God to the polytheistic gods to make your point.

So……………

Secondly, that reasoned predetermined list of characteristics of the cause eliminates all those other non-Biblical “religions”. Think about it. Your thousand gods meme is unreasonable if the universe began to exist. Only theism remains. Science eliminates all those wrong ideas including atheism. Again science supports theism. You simply default science to atheism, without defense.

Just keep repeating it over and over, and I will eventually be convinced by the rhythm and timbre of the words. I did not mention any polytheistic gods, I simply pointed out that there have been many gods invented by humans, many stories of creation from nothing. Jehovah was one of many gods before they eventually retconned him into the one-and-only, by all accounts.

What you have essentially done here is started from a potentially plausible scientific hypothesis, that the universe had a beginning, and then constructed a series of inferences based purely on your own assumptions about how things should work,

What assumptions? Put some facts to where your accusations are. Until you do so this remains another one of your unsupported mythical beliefs.

1. That time was caused to exist, despite time itself being required for causation and despite the logical requirement that all events take place at some time. Any argument that includes a premise that something happened without time, or that something caused time to begin, is doomed from the start.

2. That the origins of reality do not have to account for the (presumably real) entity that caused all of reality (except for some invented reason, itself) to begin. If the universe is all that exists and has ever existed, and God exists, God cannot be the explanation for the universe, period. There are no nuances to be found in the concept of "exists" and no way to escape the tautology that something either is or isn't.

3. That the cause of reality needs to be an intelligence, something resembling a God, rather than something that does not resemble a God. This is where you basically stacked the deck in your favor. Intelligence comes LATE in the universe, after successive iterations of failed attempts at intelligence, going all the way back to simple, non-intelligent beginnings. To postulate it at the beginning is transparent question-begging.

You keep the science terminology around to help you get out of a pinch, but you actually don't use any science to come to your conclusion.

Yes I stand guilty of using science and good philosophy to oppose your myths and bad philosophies. But I ask you…..what’s wrong with that?

Really………I don’t actually use science??????????? Lets investigate.

First, just a moment ago you rightly acknowledged my scientific support and now you deny that I even use science.

Silly person, mentioning something discovered by scientists is not using science. Science is not a body of knowledge, but a method. It involves empirical observation and controlled hypothesis testing. If you didn't have to get out of your chair to come to your conclusion, you didn't do any science. Sorry.

Secondly….Who here is using science and good philosophy and who is not? I’m overtly standing on the foundation of the SBBM, and all of its’ included scientific evidences vs your cyclic myth. I have used the BGV theorem to counter to your manifold myth. To my law of causality support you countered with mereological nihilism. You even suggested that indeterminism implies the effect was uncaused. And that short synopsis demonstrates that science and good philosophy better support my worldview over yours. So far.

Furthermore, we also have a highly precise and empirically successful model of electrodynamics that only works if we abandon the assumption that all events are caused.

Are you referring to quantum indeterminism? Because being indeterminate certainly does not imply being uncaused.

Fair enough. But it also doesn't rule out being uncaused, and that's all we need to put the law of causality into doubt.

If you want to jump of the train of reason to make your point then I be my guest. Your jump further supports my position that science better supports Christianity.

I can feel it, like a mantra, slowly guiding me towards the truth.

Oh, and I forgot to mention another assumption:

4.

I warned you before beginning. If you are going to offer some opposition to my position, it needs to be defended. I simply countered your ridiculous counter with obvious reasoning. That is not hand waving. That is debate. You don’t just get to throw bad reasoning at my position and claim victory without a fight.

I would like to disabuse you of the notion that I'm interested in fighting you, claiming victory, or even participating in a debate that needs to be resolved. I don't have any interest in convincing you that you are wrong. I put no stock in claiming internet victory against Christians. I'm doing this because I enjoy it for some reason, and I can stop anytime. If and when I do, feel free to pat yourself on the back and chalk up another win for your side, I won't mind.

 

[Learner]

It might be revealing to listen to pre schoolers discuss Santa and the Tooth Fairy and magic the same way. For example they might discuss how Santa's reindeer are able to fly. They might discuss where Santa came from. They might discuss how Santa knows if they've been bad or how Rudolph's nose can glow red. And to know we would have done exactly the same thing at their age is quite revealing as well. Their answers - our answers at that age and level of knowledge - are a window into the same questions being asked here.

What is an "unfathomable" ball? Sounds religious to me because religion requires human ignorance. Has "nothingness" ever been observed? Most people equate nothingness with a quantity of zero but they are not the same. To have a zero quantity of anything, you must have a quantity greater than zero somewhere or the concept is nonsensical.

I just used "great unfathomable ball" as a "nonsense" expressing the unlikelyhood from a concept that seems flawed.

Physics is not semantics. Labels and language are just convenient communication devices. Using different words or inventing entirely new words to describe something "spooky" is the hallmark of religious thought. Use secular language to describe anything religious and the religious magic is revealed for the institutionalized ignorance that it is.

All one needs to do is ask; "What do you define this and that as?" - during a discussion and debate.

Santa is pretend. That's what the kids should know. They should know it grew out of an older tradition common to people of these latitudes who watched the sun and knew the days would be getting longer, food would become available again, etc. But Santa is easier for kids at this stage of learning. At one point all of humanity operated on the same intellectual level as these kids.

They would be "influenced early" to grow out of santa by the mere experience, that if ever a child would need to read about santa , fairies and Harry Potter they'd be sure to find those books in the children stories, fantasy and make believe areas of a library. Biblical literature they'd understand to find elsewhere.
(also for your first quote above.)

There are no "unfathomable" balls. There are no spooky magic spacemen. There is no abracadabra. What there is most certainly is a lot of questioning and a lot of pretending when an answer is not obvious.

What is a magic spaceman?

 

[remez]

I'm doing this because I enjoy it for some reason,

Me too…….Thanks folks.
I fully intend to continue, but I'll be away until late next week.
Stay safe.