Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[remez]

A creationist will say it's logically necessary

A theist “will say” under sells the argument, the theist “reasons” it’s logically necessary. It’s your task, should you choose, to address the reason. If you approach the argument as a simple whimsical preference of human psychology then you miss the reasoning.

but then creationists like remez are around to show how people get bound up in the prejudices of their worldviews.

Why is that unreasonable?
Wait a minute………………….

Something like this is not ultimately determined by logic; it's human psychology.

Yet you’re trying to address "THIS" logically aren’t you?
What about this………..

"Why does the creator of the observable universe have to be eternal and all-powerful anyway?" Because he has to be the bestest, most complete contrast to the other half of their dualism: the everlasting versus the temporal.

….. Logical? I contend that straw man is just a reflection of your human psychology.
But I will provisionally grant you this…………

The assumptions of worldviews have a psychological and even linguistic genesis (noun-verb-object played a role in The Maker metaphor... note that there isn't a Maker in Chinese cosmology and that the language doesn't have the same structure). I agree with remez it is important to recognize them.

 

[remez]

POST 134

There are several possibilities that are often ignored by people looking to push their favorite religious explanation for the universe. For one thing, it could be the case that the observable universe was created by something outside of the observable universe (but not outside of all of time and space), and whatever that thing is no longer exists.

Santa sounds far more reasonable, because logically the unobservable part began as well.

Why does the creator of the observable universe have to be eternal and all-powerful anyway?

Clarification the observable and unobservable universe.

Because necessarily the first cause could not have a cause….. thus eternal?

To put it another way, if your only data point is the idea that the observable universe had a beginning, this alone is not sufficient to deduce that it was caused by anything outside of time and space.

If space and time began to exist than the cause would have to be transcend space and time. How is this not logical?

There may be regions of time and space beyond what we can observe, and dimensions higher than what can even be conceptualized by our brains.

If they are part of the universe they still began to exist.

If the region of spacetime we can observe is the result of something outside of it, we have no way of ruling out any number of unknown factors that have or have not been speculated by current theories.

Forensic science and reasoning. If this universe is an effect, then simply examine the universe for clues of its cause.

Given the fact that no evidence of extra-universal intervention can be found anytime after the Big Bang, the hypothesis that "God" made everything and then disappeared is actually more representative of what is observed than the Christian claim of an omnipotent, eternal being.

Granted Deism is the fall back for those who refuse to look at the Bible seriously. And why would you? It is simply a book of myths?

 

[PyramidHead]

Precisely my point, that definition is an assumption of your worldview that needs a reasonable defense. And that has been what we have been discussing here…. What is the ultimate reality? You seem to settle the issue by simply begging the definition to your position. Simply begging the definition is fallacious.

Before you object….. your minor distinction of “universe” and “observable universe” is a distinction without merit when you beg the definition that the universe as all of reality. Think about it.

You don't seem to grasp how definitions work. Definitions don't need to be defended, they can be stipulated and accepted for the sake of argument. It's like saying "let's just use the word 'universe' to refer to everything that exists, observed and unobserved, natural and supernatural." It's not a claim about anything, it's just a shorthand for the purposes of discussion, and as long as I use it consistently without equivocating, there's nothing you can do about it. You continue to miss this point, or deliberately downplay it in order to pretend there is something substantive to the distinction upon which your argument hinges. So, when you say:

Only if I defer to you begging the definition of reality. I do not defer. You need to defend your position. I contend that the universe is part of a larger reality than just the limited combination of the observed and unobserved universe. Hence it is discussion of differing worldviews.

There is no actual difference between our worldviews; I'm just using the English noun 'universe' to refer to whatever you have in bold there. If that offends you, I can use the word 'glurx'. All that exists, observable or not, made of matter or not, in space or not, is denoted by the label 'glurx'. Now, we can proceed.

Reason demands that the necessary first cause must be eternal and uncaused.

This isn't gonna slip by, no matter how many times you try it. Reason only demands what can be reasonably demonstrated. You have yet to demonstrate that a first cause is necessary or that it must be eternal. That it is uncaused is simply a matter of definition, because it wouldn't be the first cause otherwise. Which reminds me...

Under all of those models, one thing remains common: everything that occurs happens sometime. No cause, no matter how simple, can be snuck into the margin before the first instant of time. No act of deliberating intelligence can somehow be executed without having a moment at which it was executed.

(ii) Captain. You are denying a first cause.

That is not a reply to my point. Which part of this do you disagree with:

1. Something that is the first in a series is part of that series. (Definition of the adjective 'first')
2. The first cause is part of the series of causes. (from 1)
3. All causes take place before their effects. (Definition of the noun 'cause')
4. All things that take place before other things take place at some time. (Definition of the preposition 'before')
5. The first cause took place at some time. (from 3 and 4)

There is really no escape from this box. If the glurx began to exist, it could not have been caused to exist, because time is part of the glurx and causes require time. You can't power an engine by the gasoline you haven't yet pumped from the station a mile down the road. It has to be in the tank already.

Some odds and ends...

Because necessarily the first cause could not have a cause….. thus eternal?

Uncaused =/= eternal. All it means for something to be uncaused is that nothing before it made it happen. It just happened for no reason. This says nothing about how old it is or how long it lasts. Those are more theological smugglings.

If space and time began to exist than the cause would have to be transcend space and time. How is this not logical?

Because the word 'cause' as we are using it means 'something that makes something else happen after it'. All of those concepts require time. Nothing is made, nothing happens, nothing comes after, unless you are already in time. It doesn't matter that the Shell station is right down the road.

I'd like to return to this:

Ptah and Waheguru are said to have created everything from, respectively, a thought and a word. Mbombo was believed to have vomited up the universe. Esege Malan created everything from a state of darkness and silence, but you'd probably say he's cheating because he allegedly scooped up some dirt to get things started. But these are not meant to be taken literally, they are poetic license. The RigVeda speaks of the One that was present beyond being and non-being, and Tao is thought to be the ground state of nothingness from which existence spontaneously springs. This last one is actually probably the closest any religion or philosophy has gotten to what physicists hypothesize to have occurred.

How did you rule out the possibility that Ptah thought everything into existence?

 

[abaddon]

You offered cyclic models to counter the premise that the universe began to exist.
I told you that they failed.

Why don't physicists know they failed?

The continued expansion would seem to indicate universes expanding into an infinity of other universes. That's the more favored model of Sean Carroll at least (one that goes in both time-directions actually). But the various possibilities people have mentioned to you, in this discussion and others, are not off the table. That the universe might halt its expansion was hypothesized again recently: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00560 . So it might still be a cyclical universe.

Physicists don't know the ultimate laws of nature yet, so how could they rule out the other possibilities and be left with only one?

To defeat God as the logically necessary answer it takes any one single other possibility. If you know logic then you know the alternative possibility does not have to be a better explanation, it just has to be another possibility.

I made this point to you in March 2016. Others have told you this also. You just repeat yourself insistently, time and again pretending the whole argument must start from scratch so you can challenge atheists to present their reasons in the format you want or else they haven't reasoned things through. It's supposed to illustrate the lack of reason in whatever other "world-view" but it's illustrating a dogmatism in your own.

If theism, deism, pantheism, etc., are the choices of "worldviews" (as in that chart you gave) then pretty much all the other choices in that line-up are better than theism. There's no evidence of an active God anywhere in this particular universe. Why keep resorting to an area of mystery if there's a still-active all-powerful being around?

It's funny that anyone finds existence to be weird. Why is there something? Well, how could there not be?! But God... that would be weird! Scratching one's head and wondering "why God?" would be a very appropriate response because a minded eternal being is far weirder than an unminded past-eternal multiverse.

And yeah, yeah, I know, I haven't adequately addressed your logic... Even though I have, but go on with your shtick. You couldn't say "yes, maybe so" to another possibility than God even if you recognized that possibility.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would agree with you that the universe exists. But to jump to God doesn’t exist by the reasoning of empiricism fails the test of reason.

I have not seen a coherent enough definition of "god" to merit a good examination of the evidence for its existence. Nothing I have seen so far passes scientific scrutiny.

I contend that the universe is not past eternal. Thus had a beginning. Thus had a cause. From there we can forensically determine the characteristics of that cause. Those characteristics point directly to God. That was briefly stated to match your brevity. Further that is only one line of reasoning I have for God’s existence.

You are free to contend that. But a solid logical argument can be flawed if one of its premises is wrong. If the universe is past eternal your argument breaks down. What is the scientific evidence that the universe is not past eternal?

Which is more plausible the universe (all space, time, matter and energy) is past finite or eternal? The implications are incredible. Don’t be afraid to follow the evidence.

Your argument starts with the implausibility of the universe being eternal. Mine doesn't.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, remez's problem is as follows:

god = no god

So what else should anyone expect except more of the same?

 

[remez]

Again commonly recognized worldview structures…..

If you're just trying to provide an explanation for the part of reality we have so far observed, you still have to explain the rest of it, including the origin of the creator itself.

Only if I defer to you begging the definition of reality. I do not defer. You need to defend your position. I contend that the universe is part of a larger reality than just the limited combination of the observed and unobserved universe. Hence it is discussion of differing worldviews.

There is no actual difference between our worldviews; I'm just using the English noun 'universe' to refer to whatever you have in bold there. If that offends you, I can use the word 'glurx'. All that exists, observable or not, made of matter or not, in space or not, is denoted by the label 'glurx'. Now, we can proceed.

Your worldview overtly begs the question in favor of naturalism. Because it assumes in advance that the universe is all there is, therefore naturalism is true. So you’re reasoning in a circle. Why must we think that the state of affairs causally prior to the existence of the universe has be a physical state of affairs? The reason why the universe exists could be some causally prior, non-physical state of affairs. But since you assume that's impossible, then you're just begging the question in favor of naturalism.

I’m ok with you supporting your position with overt fallacy.

Because necessarily the first cause could not have a cause….. thus eternal?

Uncaused =/= eternal. All it means for something to be uncaused is that nothing before it made it happen.

Effects without causes are considered by most to be unreasonable and absurd. Worse than magic. Again, if that is your position then I’m ok with it.

If space and time began to exist than the cause would have to be transcend space and time. How is this not logical?

Because the word 'cause' as we are using it means 'something that makes something else happen after it'.

To the issue if time….You are denying simultaneous causation. Again I’m fine with your notion that you KANT see the obvious. (ii) Captain.

The goal of our discussion …is to determine whose position is better supported by the evidence and reasoning. So far I’m comfortable with the bankrupt economy of your worldview’s rationality. Begging the question, denying the notion of a first cause and denying the existence of simultaneous causes. You also believe that effects can be uncaused.

How did you rule out the possibility that Ptah thought everything into existence?

Wow you found a similarity, cool, but He was one of many gods deifying nature. Polytheistic in nature, created to correct Atum’s short “cummings”. His robust following petered out quickly.

 

[remez]

Here we go again…………

If you know logic then you know the alternative possibility does not have to be a better explanation, it just has to be another possibility.

You have got to be kidding? This again?
It is apparent you don’t know logic……..
I keep pointing this out to you. Simply offering some unreasonable possibility does not dismantle or replace the present paradigm….Which in our context here is the SBBM.

Try this…………..
How old are you? Are you older than a sixth grader?
You sure?

Isn’t it possible that reality was created fifteen minutes ago with built-in appearances of age like food in our digestive systems from a meal we never really ate and a memory of events we never really experienced?

Yes it is…… thus your belief about how old you are is defeated.

All you do is whine when I show you that your possibility is not as reasonable as what I have presented…..

I made this point to you in March 2016. Others have told you this also. You just repeat yourself insistently, time and again pretending the whole argument must start from scratch so you can challenge atheists to present their reasons in the format you want or else they haven't reasoned things through. It's supposed to illustrate the lack of reason in whatever other "world-view" but it's illustrating a dogmatism in your own.

What am I supposed to do???
Proclaim your bad reasoning is great and conclude that dismantles my reasoning?
Sorry no can do.

If theism, deism, pantheism, etc., are the choices of "worldviews" (as in that chart you gave) then pretty much all the other choices in that line-up are better than theism.

Ok…..what is your case?..................

There's no evidence of an active God anywhere in this particular universe.

You mean no evidence other than the universe itself?

It's funny that anyone finds existence to be weird. Why is there something?

It’s sad how anyone can miss the rational profundity of that question. At least Hawking, Krause and Vilenkin found it profound enough to address. It’s sad you can’t join the profound discussion rationally.

And yeah, yeah, I know, I haven't adequately addressed your logic... Even though I have, but go on with your shtick.

No you have not. Your shtick of simply providing less reasonable possibilities doesn’t displace the commanding paradigm.

You couldn't say "yes, maybe so" to another possibility than God even if you recognized that possibility.

Not until you back it up with better reasoning. If you did then I would truly alter my beliefs. I’ve done it many times. I must confess. I used to believe in Santa. And I struggled with several wrongheaded religious teachings that were presented to me.

Back to the top of your post regarding ……………

You offered cyclic models to counter the premise that the universe began to exist.
I told you that they failed.

Why don't physicists know they failed?

Many do. Does Hawking espouse a cyclic model? Krauss?
Here is a link with Vilenkin explaining their failure.
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Note that my objection to your “possibility” was not based on a religious belief, it was based on the science. I have always answered the science with science.

The continued expansion would seem to indicate universes expanding into an infinity of other universes. That's the more favored model of Sean Carroll at least (one that goes in both time-directions actually).

I know this one and I’m prepared to expose its weaknesses. But first……Make your case? Don’t just offer it as a possibility. Tell us how it works. Tell me why it’s more reasonable than SBBM? No blind faith, give me some reasons to believe it.

But the various possibilities people have mentioned to you, in this discussion and others, are not off the table.

Again make your case. Remember here at this level the issue is science not theism. I’ve never dismissed the science with religious reasoning. So what’s more reasonable than the SBBM?

That the universe might halt its expansion was hypothesized again recently: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00560 . So it might still be a cyclical universe.

Please. Providing a link to a preface of an article that can’t be read. You don’t even know what is being offered. Simple blind faith? Simple deferment to authority? Give me some reasons to believe that it’s more reasonable than SBBM?

You are the one stuck in the dogma of self-refuting scientism. You don’t even understand what you’re offering up as possibilities. You simply believe that all you have to do is offer some alternative possibility and that magically dismantles all of my defended actual science and reasoning.

Read the Vilenkin article I cited above and tell me where he is wrong about the cyclic models.

You are "nonreasoning" just like many of the anti-intellectual religious types I know.

 

[remez]

Well, there is good evidence that the universe exists, but no good evidence that your god exists. So, I'm gonna go with the universe.

I would agree with you that the universe exists. But to jump to God doesn’t exist by the reasoning of empiricism fails the test of reason.

I have not seen a coherent enough definition of "god" to merit a good examination of the evidence for its existence. Nothing I have seen so far passes scientific scrutiny.

Forgive me.
I thought you knew what you were arguing against.
What would you think of me if I were arguing against evolution and could not tell you what evolution was?

I contend that the universe is not past eternal. Thus had a beginning. Thus had a cause. From there we can forensically determine the characteristics of that cause. Those characteristics point directly to God. That was briefly stated to match your brevity. Further that is only one line of reasoning I have for God’s existence.

You are free to contend that. But a solid logical argument can be flawed if one of its premises is wrong. If the universe is past eternal your argument breaks down. What is the scientific evidence that the universe is not past eternal?

An expanding universe, CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

From the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

Hawking and Krauss each just wrote a book purporting their theories to the cause of an universe that began to exist.

Believe me I could keep right on going.
So……………..

Which is more plausible the universe (all space, time, matter and energy) is past finite or eternal? The implications are incredible. Don’t be afraid to follow the evidence.

Your argument starts with the implausibility of the universe being eternal. Mine doesn't.

…….Great!
Now it’s your turn to at least match the evidence I just provided. So let’s see your evidence, so we can discuss this further.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What would you think of me if I were arguing against evolution and could not tell you what evolution was?

I would tell you to go look it up from the experts and get the real information. Unfortunately, for "god", there are just too many different opinions, and many are conflicting, to know what the characteristics of this "god" are and which of them are truly observable/measurable.

You are free to contend that. But a solid logical argument can be flawed if one of its premises is wrong. If the universe is past eternal your argument breaks down. What is the scientific evidence that the universe is not past eternal?

An expanding universe, CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.

Those are all evidences that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and describe how the universe has evolved over time. However, we cannot know what state the universe was in prior to the putative "t=0" time and what things may have been like for t<0. Just because it was different doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Now it’s your turn to at least match the evidence I just provided. So let’s see your evidence, so we can discuss this further.

Match what? I am not making the claim. I don't know what the universe was like at t<0. I'm just not assuming that there was a "god" that created the universe at t=0. You are making that claim. And for the moment, let's assume that the claim is true, there's nothing about it that inevitably leads to specific characteristics of said "god". In fact, you can't rule out that it was created by a non-eternal god who was created by an eternal god before it. Or maybe it was more than one god. Maybe there are a nearly infinite chain of non-eternal gods who were created by a single eternal god aeons ago. You tell me how you would approach understanding the supernatural, god, and/or t<0 scientifically and maybe we can have a real discussion. All we truly know right now is that the universe was in a particular state a long time ago and we don't know how it got in that state or what may have existed before that time.

 

[abaddon]

Read the Vilenkin article I cited above and tell me where he is wrong about the cyclic models.

You're extrapolating from the article implications that don't really follow from what's written there. It's a William Lane Craig kind of thing to do.

Read this article: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

It's by Sean Carroll (I refer to him a lot because I'm currently reading his book The Big Picture and so for now he's my guide to cosmology; also he's well acquainted with the theological 'hypothesis' about it) and here's a quote I want especially to draw attention to:

... his (William Lane Craig's) favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probably didn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions.

There is no logical fault with saying that any other reasonable possibility undoes the notion of a "necessary first cause".

You can't reasonably dismiss what physicists are presently considering as possible models (plural) for prior to the Big Bang. You're availing yourself of some physics, twisting it as WL Craig does, and dismissing what doesn't work for your wanted conclusion.

So, I stand by my 6th grade argument that other possibilities undo the 'logically necessary' things you cram into your argument (a first cause, an eternal being, et al). You want to eliminate other possibilities because you understand the principle too.

 

[remez]

Those are all evidences that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and describe how the universe has evolved over time.

Granted those evidences indicate a singularity AND MORE……………

AGAIN from the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning


Hawking and Krauss each just wrote a book about purporting their theories to the cause of an universe that began to exist.

However, we cannot know what state the universe was in prior to the putative "t=0" time

Yes……It was not there. There was no space there for the universe to be in. There was no time there for the universe to be in. There was no matter there for the universe to be. There was no energy there for the universe to exist. Thus the state of affairs prior to t=0 was spaceless, timeless, immaterial and non-physical. The direct observation of science ends at t=0.

Just because it was different doesn't mean it wasn't there.

I’m assuming the “it” there meant universe.

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

If at t<0 there was no space, time, matter and energy how could the universe be there in a different form?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Granted those evidences indicate a singularity AND MORE……………

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

AGAIN from the cosmologists themselves….

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

- Alexander Vilenkin

Don't say "cosmologists" when you're quoting only one. I'll go talk to some of my cosmologist friends and get back to you with what some others say.

However, we cannot know what state the universe was in prior to the putative "t=0" time

Yes……It was not there. There was no space there for the universe to be in. There was no time there for the universe to be in.

Those are unsubstantiated assertions. How can you know there was no space? How can you know there was no time?

The direct observation of science ends at t=0.

That doesn't mean there weren't things before t=0 that we simply cannot observe. What if the universe when through some kind of phase change at t=0 and produced the observable universe and there was no "god" behind it?

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

Cart before the horse. You are assuming that there was no existence before t=0 and then concluding that there was no existence before t=0. I am challenging your premises, not your argument.

If at t<0 there was no space, time, matter and energy how could the universe be there in a different form?

We don't know that the first part is true. And maybe we can't know what form the universe had before t=0 if it did, but that doesn't imply that there must be a "god". And it certainly doesn't imply any particular characteristics of said "god" even if it did.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Ok.. here's what Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and your buddy Alexander Vilenkin actually said in a scientific context (bold emphasis mine):

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper.

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation. They didn't say "god did it."

 

[remez]

You're extrapolating from the article implications that don't really follow from what's written there. It's a William Lane Craig kind of thing to do.

Hold on. All I extrapolated was that cyclic models failed. That was our context and that is exactly what the article does. More specifically that Carroll-Chen cyclic model fails. Further I cited earlier a lecture where he more fully explained the theorem and what it meant for cyclic models.

Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak

It’s really not that long and incredibly interesting. Particularly at time 12:12…..

That was our context. To assert I extrapolated more than that there is a typical kind a straw man “thing” offered against the theist. Carroll does precisely that in the article you cited. But I’m impressed with your efforts to produce his post-debate reflections. I read those years ago. But did you see if WLC had any feasible responses to Carroll’s assertions. I did. The debate did continue on both sides, as they often do. The WLC- Krauss debate is still going. Love it.

There is no logical fault with saying that any other reasonable possibility undoes the notion of a "necessary first cause".

I would agree if it were REASONABLE. That is the first time I recall you using the descriptive “reasonable” when referring to other possibilities. Finish following the debate and watch the video. The Carroll-Chen Model is unreasonable. Thus it fails to defeat the paradigm of a past finite universe.

Further the understanding of a “necessary first cause” is metaphysical. An important distinction to keep in mind, or you might think I was extrapolating more than I was. Like here….

So, I stand by my 6th grade argument that other possibilities undo the 'logically necessary' things you cram into your argument (a first cause, an eternal being, et al). You want to eliminate other possibilities because you understand the principle too.

First note that once again you left off the qualifying descriptive of “reasonable” when referring to an alternative possibility. That was my open contention with you earlier. You need to offer good reasons as to why your defeater displaces my position.

Secondly, the metaphysical “necessary first cause” is supported by the science. It is not the conclusion of science. They are linked by reason not crammed. It appears you keep missing this and making a straw man out of my position.

Thirdly, yes I understand the principle. But the possibility must be reasonable and that is what we are debating at the scientific level. Hence my counters offered against the other possible models. I do not deny that is what I have been attempting to do.

 

[remez]

Granted those evidences indicate a singularity AND MORE……………

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began. It gets you nowhere.
Too simply stated I’m sure, but the point is still there.

Don't say "cosmologists" when you're quoting only one.

Petty. I quoted one and referenced others. Look again.

However, we cannot know what state the universe was in prior to the putative "t=0" time

Yes……It was not there. There was no space there for the universe to be in. There was no time there for the universe to be in.

Those are unsubstantiated assertions. How can you know there was no space? How can you know there was no time?

Well take a look at those other references I cited and think about it.

Also how is it you can say that I can’t know, but above you said you know the singularity is wrong? Double standards again just like an eternal God needing a cause when an eternal universe wouldn’t. Consistency matters. Quit conflating knowledge with absolute certainty when it suits you.

The direct observation of science ends at t=0.

That doesn't mean there weren't things before t=0 that we simply cannot observe. What if the universe when through some kind of phase change at t=0 and produced the observable universe and there was no "god" behind it?

Note your statement is metaphysical not scientific. So if we can’t observe it directly, then let’s forensically examine the universe now and determine the state of affairs at t<0. The “thing” would have had to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial because at t=0 space, matter and time began to exist. A universe that has no space, no time and no matter is no universe. So….A phase change of what?

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

Cart before the horse. You are assuming that there was no existence before t=0 and then concluding that there was no existence before t=0. I am challenging your premises, not your argument.

No, that was a common “if-then” statement. The antecedent was not assumed. Simply replace my “if” with “since” to clarify it for yourself.

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

We don't know that the first part is true. And maybe we can't know what form the universe had before t=0 if it did, but that doesn't imply that there must be a "god". And it certainly doesn't imply any particular characteristics of said "god" even if it did.

Parsed…

We don't know that the first part is true.

There you go again. You don’t know for CERTAIN. But that does not imply one does not know. You don’t know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but you know that it will. So yes it is most plausible that the antecedent is true. Give me a good reason why I should not expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

And maybe we can't know what form the universe had before t=0 if it did, but that doesn't imply that there must be a "god". And it certainly doesn't imply any particular characteristics of said "god" even if it did.

Now you have your metaphysics the other way around. God does not infer the cause, the cause infers God. The characteristics of the cause come first. The cause would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, nonphysical, eternal and uncaused. And it is that list of characteristics that infers God.

Post 154

Ok.. here's what Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and your buddy Alexander Vilenkin actually said in a scientific context (bold emphasis mine):

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper.

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation. They didn't say "god did it."

Parsed…..

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation.

I extremely comfortable with their statement. All the science they have points to a past finite universe. They don’t have a science available now to avoid the overt inference that the universe began to exist.

But you seem to be pleading for a nature/science of the gaps solution, aka “god of the gaps” fallacy. Just give it enough time and science will answer the question because the cause has to be natural.

They didn't say "god did it."

Of course they didn’t. They stopped at nature. Because that as far as the science can go.

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

And I didn’t just SAY goddidit. I presented an argument supported by science that concluded that God was the cause. An argument you’ve yet to dismiss with a reasonable fault.

 

[Juma]

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began. It gets you nowhere.
Too simply stated I’m sure, but the point is still there.

Don't say "cosmologists" when you're quoting only one.

Petty. I quoted one and referenced others. Look again.

However, we cannot know what state the universe was in prior to the putative "t=0" time

Yes……It was not there. There was no space there for the universe to be in. There was no time there for the universe to be in.

Those are unsubstantiated assertions. How can you know there was no space? How can you know there was no time?

Well take a look at those other references I cited and think about it.

Also how is it you can say that I can’t know, but above you said you know the singularity is wrong? Double standards again just like an eternal God needing a cause when an eternal universe wouldn’t. Consistency matters. Quit conflating knowledge with absolute certainty when it suits you.

The direct observation of science ends at t=0.

That doesn't mean there weren't things before t=0 that we simply cannot observe. What if the universe when through some kind of phase change at t=0 and produced the observable universe and there was no "god" behind it?

Note your statement is metaphysical not scientific. So if we can’t observe it directly, then let’s forensically examine the universe now and determine the state of affairs at t<0. The “thing” would have had to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial because at t=0 space, matter and time began to exist. A universe that has no space, no time and no matter is no universe. So….A phase change of what?

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

Cart before the horse. You are assuming that there was no existence before t=0 and then concluding that there was no existence before t=0. I am challenging your premises, not your argument.

No, that was a common “if-then” statement. The antecedent was not assumed. Simply replace my “if” with “since” to clarify it for yourself.

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

We don't know that the first part is true. And maybe we can't know what form the universe had before t=0 if it did, but that doesn't imply that there must be a "god". And it certainly doesn't imply any particular characteristics of said "god" even if it did.

Parsed…

We don't know that the first part is true.

There you go again. You don’t know for CERTAIN. But that does not imply one does not know. You don’t know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but you know that it will. So yes it is most plausible that the antecedent is true. Give me a good reason why I should not expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

And maybe we can't know what form the universe had before t=0 if it did, but that doesn't imply that there must be a "god". And it certainly doesn't imply any particular characteristics of said "god" even if it did.

Now you have your metaphysics the other way around. God does not infer the cause, the cause infers God. The characteristics of the cause come first. The cause would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, nonphysical, eternal and uncaused. And it is that list of characteristics that infers God.

Post 154

Ok.. here's what Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and your buddy Alexander Vilenkin actually said in a scientific context (bold emphasis mine):

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper.

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation. They didn't say "god did it."

Parsed…..

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation.

I extremely comfortable with their statement. All the science they have points to a past finite universe. They don’t have a science available now to avoid the overt inference that the universe began to exist.

But you seem to be pleading for a nature/science of the gaps solution, aka “god of the gaps” fallacy. Just give it enough time and science will answer the question because the cause has to be natural.

They didn't say "god did it."

Of course they didn’t. They stopped at nature. Because that as far as the science can go.

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

And I didn’t just SAY goddidit. I presented an argument supported by science that concluded that God was the cause. An argument you’ve yet to dismiss with a reasonable fault.

Lying for jesus again?

 

[Shadowy Man]

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began. It gets you nowhere.
Too simply stated I’m sure, but the point is still there.

"Our best science thus far infers that matter began. " I disagree. You are assuming it "began".

Furthermore, ask any of your cosmologists friends if they believe that the universe can be accurately modeled by General Relativity at times less than t=10^-43 seconds. It's pretty common knowledge that before you get to a singularity quantum mechanics has to be taken into account. Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR, so our knowledge is still incomplete about what the state of the universe was at t=0.

Also how is it you can say that I can’t know, but above you said you know the singularity is wrong? Double standards again just like an eternal God needing a cause when an eternal universe wouldn’t. Consistency matters. Quit conflating knowledge with absolute certainty when it suits you.

See my above paragraph about QM and GR. It's not a double standard.

The “thing” would have had to be spaceless, timeless and immaterial because at t=0 space, matter and time began to exist.

You are just repeating your assertion that at t=0 everything "began".

A universe that has no space, no time and no matter is no universe.

Again, your assertion.

So….A phase change of what?

That's what we'd like to find out, right?

So again……If all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0, then the universe was not there at t<0.

Cart before the horse. You are assuming that there was no existence before t=0 and then concluding that there was no existence before t=0. I am challenging your premises, not your argument.

No, that was a common “if-then” statement. The antecedent was not assumed. Simply replace my “if” with “since” to clarify it for yourself.

Ok. So I should read it as "since all space, time, matter and energy came into existence at t=0..."

Again your repeated assertion.

There you go again. You don’t know for CERTAIN. But that does not imply one does not know. You don’t know for certain that the sun will rise tomorrow morning but you know that it will. So yes it is most plausible that the antecedent is true. Give me a good reason why I should not expect the sun to rise tomorrow.

Define "knowing for certain".

God does not infer the cause, the cause infers God. The characteristics of the cause come first. The cause would have to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, nonphysical, eternal and uncaused. And it is that list of characteristics that infers God.

*If* there is a cause.

Ok.. here's what Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and your buddy Alexander Vilenkin actually said in a scientific context (bold emphasis mine):

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper.

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation. They didn't say "god did it."

I extremely comfortable with their statement. All the science they have points to a past finite universe. They don’t have a science available now to avoid the overt inference that the universe began to exist.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*". They are not agreeing with you that the universe began to exist.

 

[remez]

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

What does gravity operate on? …Matter?
Our best science thus far infers that matter began.
Thus gravity also began. It gets you nowhere.
Too simply stated I’m sure, but the point is still there.

"Our best science thus far infers that matter began. " I disagree. You are assuming it "began".

Furthermore, ask any of your cosmologists friends if they believe that the universe can be accurately modeled by General Relativity at times less than t=10^-43 seconds. It's pretty common knowledge that before you get to a singularity quantum mechanics has to be taken into account. Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR, so our knowledge is still incomplete about what the state of the universe was at t=0.

Parsed…..

"Our best science thus far infers that matter began. " I disagree. You are assuming it "began".

You are conflating assumption with rational inference. It is a confusing but important distinction. I’m not assuming that matter began to exist. I’m rational inferring that matter began on the assumption of the facts of science. Thus my assumption there was SBBM and all its collaborating evidence. Also I’m assuming, that when Hawking and Krauss wrote their books inferring theories of how the universe began, that they were assuming that the universe began. Further ex.

p) You don’t have a proper understanding of the assumption and rational inference.

Now p is my inference based on the assumption that your use (thus far) of the term “assumption” has been incorrect.

Furthermore, ask any of your cosmologists friends if they believe that the universe can be accurately modeled by General Relativity at times less than t=10^-43 seconds. It's pretty common knowledge that before you get to a singularity quantum mechanics has to be taken into account. Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR,

I completely concur with that. A complete no brainer. But when you say “taken into account”…… I ask you taken into account to do or to know what? There is a goal in mind.

Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR, so our knowledge is still incomplete about what the state of the universe was at t=0.

Now that statement is a statement of inference. In your inference I see an assumption of “only absolute certainty” gives us knowledge. And you use that incorrect assumption to claim that I’m assuming my position. Ironically there, you’re also assuming that all assumptions are wrong.

I contend that you have knowledge but that only a very small % is absolute knowledge. Most of your knowledge rests upon rational inference.

Another flavor of inference you have in your statement is this. Within the assumed context of the singularity, you’re inferring that since we don’t know the state of affairs for that last Planck second of past history that we can’t rationally infer from our position of 13.7 billion years of historical knowledge that the universe began to exist. Thus once again that inference is based on the assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty.

Now think about this…. The assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty is an assumption that is not absolutely certain.

Now I know this might be perceived as a massive word salad affair but I assure you this is where we are missing each other here. There is a difference I assure you, I’ve even had occasion to teach it. Please do a simple “inference vs assumption” google search, I’m not making this up. People misuse the terms all the time. You have a glaring hole in your knowledge there. You need to go deeper in your understanding, because you cannot continue to conflate assumption and rational inference and make sense. And more importantly here you don’t even see it and claim I’m the one in error.

Also how is it you can say that I can’t know, but above you said you know the singularity is wrong? Double standards again just like an eternal God needing a cause when an eternal universe wouldn’t. Consistency matters. Quit conflating knowledge with absolute certainty when it suits you.

See my above paragraph about QM and GR. It's not a double standard.

Yes but observe…. What you stated
Coupled with….
Your assumption that knowledge is only knowledge if you have absolute certainty.
You said…………

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

You don’t have absolute certainty to say that. You don’t even have a rational inference to say that. Because the singularity isn’t a theory it’s a fact of an expanding universe. Attempts have been made to avoid the singularity but they remain untenable.

So my point here was how you can say you know? When you don’t have certainty, and its "certainty" that seems to be your criterion of knowledge. At least that is the standard you hold my views to or else it simply assumed.
Hence my concern for your double standard?

Ok.. here's what Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and your buddy Alexander Vilenkin actually said in a scientific context (bold emphasis mine):

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow
be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary.
This is the chief result of our paper.

So, basically, they're saying that we'll need to invent some new physics to explain what might have happened before inflation. They didn't say "god did it."

I extremely comfortable with their statement. All the science they have points to a past finite universe. They don’t have a science available now to avoid the overt inference that the universe began to exist.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*". They are not agreeing with you that the universe began to exist.

Parsed…

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*".

Some new physics is necessary to explain what?
How does some new physics that can explain the last Planck second, matter to the rational inference that the universe began to exist?

Hold on. If you going to say “we don’t know”, maybe some new physic can make the universe eternal, we just don’t know…..then you are simply filling the gap with your naturalism. A hope that rests on a single Planck second compared to a 13.7 billion year rational inference. Do the math……What is more plausible?
Then dishonestly you repeat yourself here…

They are not agreeing with you that the universe began to exist.

….even though I addressed it last time….

They didn't say "god did it."

Of course they didn’t. They stopped at nature. Because that as far as the science can go.

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

And I didn’t just SAY goddidit. I presented an argument supported by science that concluded that God was the cause. An argument you’ve yet to dismiss with a reasonable fault.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m rational inferring that matter began on the assumption of the facts of science.

Fair enough. I just happen to have a different viewpoint.

Also I’m assuming, that when Hawking and Krauss wrote their books inferring theories of how the universe began, that they were assuming that the universe began. Further ex.

Irrelevant. Argument from authority.

Furthermore, ask any of your cosmologists friends if they believe that the universe can be accurately modeled by General Relativity at times less than t=10^-43 seconds. It's pretty common knowledge that before you get to a singularity quantum mechanics has to be taken into account. Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR,

I completely concur with that. A complete no brainer. But when you say “taken into account”…… I ask you taken into account to do or to know what? There is a goal in mind.

The goal would be to explain the nature of the universe before t=10^-43 seconds. Since we know the classical theory is incomplete, we cannot assume that the classical theory accurately predicts the conditions at t=0.

Currently there is no definitive scientific answer as to how to incorporate QM into GR, so our knowledge is still incomplete about what the state of the universe was at t=0.

Now that statement is a statement of inference. In your inference I see an assumption of “only absolute certainty” gives us knowledge.

When did I speak about "absolute certainty"?

Ironically there, you’re also assuming that all assumptions are wrong.

Sorry, I don't follow.

Another flavor of inference you have in your statement is this. Within the assumed context of the singularity, you’re inferring that since we don’t know the state of affairs for that last Planck second of past history that we can’t rationally infer from our position of 13.7 billion years of historical knowledge that the universe began to exist. Thus once again that inference is based on the assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty.

I never said anything about "absolute certainty". I think you are projecting. What I'm saying is that if you know that the classical theory is incomplete in the parameter space in which you are trying to use it, it is not good practice to use it and "infer" that it is reflecting reality.

The ultraviolet catastrophe ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_catastrophe) is a great example of how the classical theory breaks down and could only be reconciled by incorporating quantum mechanics.

Now think about this…. The assumption that knowledge is only absolute certainty is an assumption that is not absolutely certain.

I have not spoken of "absolute certainty".

Now I know this might be perceived as a massive word salad affair...

Then you should write more clearly.

For one, we know that the singularity is likely to be wrong because we don't have a quantum gravity theory.

You don’t have absolute certainty to say that.

Note the use of the word "likely".

You don’t even have a rational inference to say that. Because the singularity isn’t a theory it’s a fact of an expanding universe.

It's a "fact" of a classical theory that we know is incomplete with regard to the incorporation of modern physics. It's as much a "fact" as the ultraviolet catastrophe was.

Attempts have been made to avoid the singularity but they remain untenable.

Attempts are ongoing. We do not yet know if there is a solution that avoids the singularity at t=0.

So my point here was how you can say you know? When you don’t have certainty, and its "certainty" that seems to be your criterion of knowledge. At least that is the standard you hold my views to or else it simply assumed.
Hence my concern for your double standard?

I'm not saying I know. I'm saying that I don't know. I'm saying that I won't say that "before" t=0 there was a god that created the universe.

Then read what they say: "some new physics is *necessary*".

Some new physics is necessary to explain what?

Read the paper for your answer.

Hold on. If you going to say “we don’t know”, maybe some new physic can make the universe eternal, we just don’t know…..then you are simply filling the gap with your naturalism. A hope that rests on a single Planck second compared to a 13.7 billion year rational inference. Do the math……What is more plausible?

What's more plausible? You mean between filling the gap with more physics or filling the gap with a god? Which approach do you think has been more successful in explaining the universe?

But that does not mean all reasoning stops at the limit of science. Science is not the paradigm of all knowledge. And it doesn’t mean scientists should stop looking either.

You are welcome to reason beyond what you can scientifically prove. And I am welcome to disagree with you and believe that reasoning beyond what you can prove is speculative. And I am welcome to believe that filling the unknown with god is not a good approach.

And I didn’t just SAY goddidit. I presented an argument supported by science that concluded that God was the cause. An argument you’ve yet to dismiss with a reasonable fault.

And I have contended that the word "God" means so many different things to so many different people that it is not a useful explanation for anything. If you can give me a list of characteristics that are "supported by science" I'd like to see that summary.