Creationists: Here's your chance

[The_Evelyonian]

I disagree, your 'religion' next to your avatar pic, is stated as atheist, hence you don't need nor require evidence for any purpose, you have already decided to deny theism,

False. I have not decided to deny anything. I'm open to evidence for theism just as I am open to evidence for creationism. Should anyone provide compelling evidence for either I will examine it eagerly and with an open mind.

May I ask a question? Is there a particular reason you've chosen to assign motives to my actions and then attack those motives? Do you have a thing for strawmen, maybe?

and it's quite obvious to you and me, that discussing the first cause, either of an intelligent creator or a creation without intelligence, either of life or the universe is based totally in opinion, because neither of these events has been observed by humans. To ask for evidence of these events is merely a trap for fools and I wanted to highlight that, hence my post.

Well, fortunately, evidence for creationism goes beyond conclusively proving what happened at the moment the universe began.

I am quite surprised that "A Man of Science" would not consider that it is not currently possible to provide conclusive evidence for the two first causes under discussion and as such broaden the scope of the discussion to include subjective matters and lessen the rigor of the evidence or proof required to facilitate more meaningful debate.

Again, those trying to prove creationism need not worry about "the first cause". Use your imagination a bit. How about trying to prove a young-earth? If you could prove that the earth is no older than 6000 years, I would take that as very strong evidence for creationism.

I agree. Yet that doesn't change the fact that a discussion of different theories is worthwhile in a discussion to decide which theory is most relevant or valid in its scope, you seek to be one-sided in the argument calling for only creationist views, one-sided argument is fallacious.

This thread is for those who claim that their side is not given a proper chance on the scientific field. Hence, it is going to focus on their side of the argument. It will also be placed on the level of science rather than philosophy, hence the 'few points'

As I have said, and you should well know since you claim to be "A Man of Science", there cannot be tangible evidence for how the original creation of the universe, nor first life occurred. The example statement of yours bolded just above, is a good example of fallacious reasoning - and I thank you for its revelation, but you seem unwilling to recognize that "The Big Sciences" also cannot provide tangible evidence on the creation of the universe or first life either, they are currently unobservable and currently non reproducible.

I am well aware that science does not have conclusive proof of how the universe began. I've admitted that fact several times in this thread.

As such the 2nd part of point 4 is currently an impossible request both for the creationists and the scientists, and hence is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst the one-sidedness of your OP conditions would not have revealed this reasoning.

Again, you missed the point. Creationists want their side taught in science classrooms. Most seem to believe that it isn't happening because of some kind of prejudice amongst the upper echelons of the scientific community. My whole point was that prejudice has nothing to do with it. Until you can provide evidence for a claim, it isn't scientific. Therefore, the scientific community has no reason to take the claim seriously.

Point #4 [Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.] is not meant to limit creationists to having to prove how the universe began. It's simply meant to prevent esoteric assertions. If you want to prove creationism by other means than how the universe began go for it.

Prove a young-earth

Prove Adam and Eve actually existed

Prove the global flood

Just back your claims up with tangible evidence, don't just make the assertions and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

You are obviously looking for a win. The boundaries you have set for the discussion are one-sided, they are fallaciously propositioned, and that will only provide you with a false win.

Let me assure you, I am not looking for a win of any kind, false or otherwise.

I post because your title and op drew me in, such good marketing I couldn't resist, and I do so love a respectful debate about these matters, if we can avoid ad hominem I shall be enormously happy, and I apologize for my fallacious poisoning the well comment regarding atheism.

Apology accepted

I think agnosticism is superior to atheism for a scientist.

As do I.

The reason I use "Atheist" as my religion title is because too many people think that 'Agnostic' implies that you believe the odds of god existing are roughly 50/50, maybe he exists and maybe he doesn't.

I do not believe that the odds of god's existence are 50/50. I think that god is extremely improbable (about as likely as fairies or pink unicorns). However, I would never go as far as to say "I know there is no god." That, to me, is no better than saying, "I know there is a god." Both are statements of faith, neither is scientific (at this point, anyway).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Again, those trying to prove creationism need not worry about "the first cause". Use your imagination a bit. How about trying to prove a young-earth? If you could prove that the earth is no older than 6000 years, I would take that as very strong evidence for creationism.


Prove a young-earth

Prove Adam and Eve actually existed

Prove the global flood

Just back your claims up with tangible evidence, don't just make the assertions and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

I knew what you meant from the start and I like the fact that you restated what you will except in the way of evidence for creationism considering Danmac accused me of "challenging the existence of God".......even though that wasn't my position. So there we have it. I'm and interested in what evidence there is for a 6k year old earth, Adam and Eve (just a few of the mythic figures from the bible), as well as evidence for a global deluge.......

 

[Peacewise]

False. I have not decided to deny anything. I'm open to evidence for theism just as I am open to evidence for creationism. Should anyone provide compelling evidence for either I will examine it eagerly and with an open mind.

May I ask a question? Is there a particular reason you've chosen to assign motives to my actions and then attack those motives? Do you have a thing for strawmen, maybe?

Because you claim to be atheist, I believed your motivation was in denying the existence of God, don't be worried about that, I believe the creationist's motivation is often in proving the existence of God, so this is well balanced, yet down below I see you step back from an atheist view point to agnostic, if you had stated you are agnostic originally then I would not misconstrue your motivations.

...Use your imagination a bit. How about trying to prove a young-earth? If you could prove that the earth is no older than 6000 years, I would take that as very strong evidence for creationism.

I use my imagination often... but lol, no thank you for I do not believe that the earth is so young.

This thread is for those who claim that their side is not given a proper chance on the scientific field. Hence, it is going to focus on their side of the argument. It will also be placed on the level of science rather than philosophy, hence the 'few points'

a poor justification for the one-sidedness that is irrelevant to elaborating upon the truth or opinions as they relate to the first causes.

I am well aware that science does not have conclusive proof of how the universe began. I've admitted that fact several times in this thread.

cool we agree.

Again, you missed the point. Creationists want their side taught in science classrooms. Most seem to believe that it isn't happening because of some kind of prejudice amongst the upper echelons of the scientific community. My whole point was that prejudice has nothing to do with it. Until you can provide evidence for a claim, it isn't scientific. Therefore, the scientific community has no reason to take the claim seriously.

Point #4 [Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible.] is not meant to limit creationists to having to prove how the universe began. It's simply meant to prevent esoteric assertions. If you want to prove creationism by other means than how the universe began go for it.

Prove a young-earth

Prove Adam and Eve actually existed

Prove the global flood

Just back your claims up with tangible evidence, don't just make the assertions and then wonder why no one takes them seriously.

I make no claims as to how or indeed why the two first causes occurred.

The creationists have a point regarding the scientists flaw in their reasoning - and hence prejudice, because the scientists do not know how the two first causes occurred either yet their beliefs on those are being taught in schools. If one side can have a set of beliefs taught in schools, then the other side should as well, a balance is required, for it is currently (well in australia) weighted towards science, and weighted so strongly that even beliefs of science are taught. I want science taught in school as much as any scientist, yet I do not want science taught in a situation and in such a manner that it is taught as fact when it is only belief, ie on the two first causes.

Using science's own principles an unproven belief is not something held, and certainly not taught as held, and hence the two beliefs of science regarding the first causes should be taught as belief's, yet science is taught as fact, because everyone knows science is based on fact - observation, measurement and so forth. This hides to the children that science does not currently know how the two first causes occurred.

...

The reason I use "Atheist" as my religion title is because too many people think that 'Agnostic' implies that you believe the odds of god existing are roughly 50/50, maybe he exists and maybe he doesn't.

I do not believe that the odds of god's existence are 50/50. I think that god is extremely improbable (about as likely as fairies or pink unicorns). However, I would never go as far as to say "I know there is no god." That, to me, is no better than saying, "I know there is a god." Both are statements of faith, neither is scientific (at this point, anyway).

I sincerely appreciate you mentioning why you are motivated to call yourself atheist, however I respectfully suggest that allowing the misconceptions of other people to cause you to miscommunicate your espoused belief is less worthy than using the correct term, because it continues and enhances the incorrect use of the terms atheist and agnostic therefore diminishing understanding, imo it is an unscientific action to take - but very human.

agnostic
// (say ag'nostik)
noun 1. someone who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown or unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
–adjective 2. relating to the agnostics or their doctrines.
3. asserting the relativity and uncertainty of all knowledge. [A-6 + Greek gnōstikos knowing; coined by TH Huxley in 1869]
–agnostically, adverb

I find it interesting that you would state you are atheist as your 'religion' or belief, based upon others belief of the meaning of the word. This reveals to me the highly subjective nature of humans and hence our perception of reality, and this reinforces me further towards my knowledge that there is much of use in the subjective view point.

I love both the objective view point and the subjective view point, hence I am eclectic in my 'religion'.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I make no claims as to how or indeed why the two first causes occurred.

The creationists have a point regarding the scientists flaw in their reasoning - and hence prejudice, because the scientists do not know how the two first causes occurred either yet their beliefs on those are being taught in schools. If one side can have a set of beliefs taught in schools, then the other side should as well, a balance is required, for it is currently (well in australia) weighted towards science, and weighted so strongly that even beliefs of science are taught. I want science taught in school as much as any scientist, yet I do not want science taught in a situation and in such a manner that it is taught as fact when it is only belief, ie on the two first causes.

Using science's own principles an unproven belief is not something held, and certainly not taught as held, and hence the two beliefs of science regarding the first causes should be taught as belief's, yet science is taught as fact, because everyone knows science is based on fact - observation, measurement and so forth. This hides to the children that science does not currently know how the two first causes occurred.

You seem to be under the impressions that...

1. A first cause is necessary.
2. Science teaches what that first cause was.
3. Supernatural explanations have equal footing with natural explanations in science.
4. All things that cannot be proven have equal validity.

I am not sure where you are getting your misinformation from, but you are wrong in all four cases.
While evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology and natural geology are not only accepted by the scientific community as a whole and taught as such in proper science classes. They are also backed by overwhelming empirical evidence and are constantly being tested through the scientific method.
I know of no accepted theory of first cause that is taught. It has not even been shown that a first cause is necessary. And while biochemistry has made great advances in showing how abiogenesis could come about, so far the exact mechanism of abiogenesis has not been nailed down (AFAIK).
As for the validity of a supernatural explanation, especially concerning science, there is none. Expecting a "God did it" theory to be taught in a science class is counter to everything science and education stand for. Science is not based on "beliefs" as you have implied, but on overwhelming, repeatable, falsifiable, and predictable evidence.
Supernatural causes cannot be tested in any of these four methods of science, and are therefore excluded from the natural sciences and are regulated to the more metaphysical and speculative studies of theology and philosophy.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The creationists have a point regarding the scientists flaw in their reasoning - and hence prejudice, because the scientists do not know how the two first causes occurred either yet their beliefs on those are being taught in schools. If one side can have a set of beliefs taught in schools, then the other side should as well, a balance is required,

But therein lies the problem in trying to teach creationism in schools. Which creation myth would they pick?
Should they teach children the story of god creating the world in 6 days some 6,000-10,000 years ago?
Maybe teach them about how the great Mbombo vomited up the Sun, Moon, and Stars?
How about the classical Greek myth of creation?
Heck, go to Wikipedia and search "Creation myth". There's no shortage of them to pick from.

The problem in teaching creationism in the science classes is you wouldn't be able to pick and choose your mythology. Even if you started out simply by teaching Intelligent Design it would still only be a matter of time before another religious group started to say that they were being discriminated against and wanted their myth taught in the science classroom as well. Once it started there would be no stopping it.

I sincerely appreciate you mentioning why you are motivated to call yourself atheist, however I respectfully suggest that allowing the misconceptions of other people to cause you to miscommunicate your espoused belief is less worthy than using the correct term, because it continues and enhances the incorrect use of the terms atheist and agnostic therefore diminishing understanding, imo it is an unscientific action to take - but very human.

agnostic
// (say ag'nostik)
noun 1. someone who holds that the ultimate cause (God) and the essential nature of things are unknown or unknowable or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
–adjective 2. relating to the agnostics or their doctrines.
3. asserting the relativity and uncertainty of all knowledge. [A-6 + Greek gnōstikos knowing; coined by TH Huxley in 1869]
–agnostically, adverb

I find it interesting that you would state you are atheist as your 'religion' or belief, based upon others belief of the meaning of the word. This reveals to me the highly subjective nature of humans and hence our perception of reality, and this reinforces me further towards my knowledge that there is much of use in the subjective view point.

I love both the objective view point and the subjective view point, hence I am eclectic in my 'religion'.

Well, the term "Atheist" is closer to what I believe than "Agnostic". I don't believe that the existence of god is ultimately unknowable. I don't personally believe in a god but I won't go so far as to say I know there is no god.

If you really want to know where I stand then let's take the scale laid out in the book The God Delusion

1) Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2) Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

3) Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4) Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5) Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6) Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7) Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

Underlines added by The_Evelyonian

I consider myself a 6 on that scale, so if I were going to use the correct term for my religion I would use "De facto atheist".

 

[Jose Fly]

The creationists have a point regarding the scientists flaw in their reasoning - and hence prejudice, because the scientists do not know how the two first causes occurred either yet their beliefs on those are being taught in schools. If one side can have a set of beliefs taught in schools, then the other side should as well, a balance is required, for it is currently (well in australia) weighted towards science, and weighted so strongly that even beliefs of science are taught. I want science taught in school as much as any scientist, yet I do not want science taught in a situation and in such a manner that it is taught as fact when it is only belief, ie on the two first causes

Again you equate "they don't know everything about an event" with "they don't know anything about an event, thus their ideas are on the same level as religious mythology".

That's a serious flaw in your argument.

 

[Peacewise]

You seem to be under the impressions that...

1. A first cause is necessary.
2. Science teaches what that first cause was.
3. Supernatural explanations have equal footing with natural explanations in science.
4. All things that cannot be proven have equal validity.

I am not sure where you are getting your misinformation from, but you are wrong in all four cases.
While evolutionary biology, Big Bang cosmology and natural geology are not only accepted by the scientific community as a whole and taught as such in proper science classes. They are also backed by overwhelming empirical evidence and are constantly being tested through the scientific method.
I know of no accepted theory of first cause that is taught. It has not even been shown that a first cause is necessary. And while biochemistry has made great advances in showing how abiogenesis could come about, so far the exact mechanism of abiogenesis has not been nailed down (AFAIK).
As for the validity of a supernatural explanation, especially concerning science, there is none. Expecting a "God did it" theory to be taught in a science class is counter to everything science and education stand for. Science is not based on "beliefs" as you have implied, but on overwhelming, repeatable, falsifiable, and predictable evidence.
Supernatural causes cannot be tested in any of these four methods of science, and are therefore excluded from the natural sciences and are regulated to the more metaphysical and speculative studies of theology and philosophy.

Just going by what I was taught in school.
In science classes...

I was taught the Big Bang Theory as the how of the creation of the universe, and I recall it was stated as fact.

I recall that it was taught that chance was what brought together the first set of molecules that formed rna, then dna, then organisms and so on, well roughly something like that it was over 20 years ago - and likewise this was stated as fact, yet there was a qualification that this could not be reproduced yet.

Likewise at Adelaide University the Big Bang Model was taught for cosmology, within the subject Astronomy, though it was a first year course and only a small part of it at that. I did not study biology at uni.

I had no religious studies at all in high school at all - hence there is no counter argument to the scientific models taught on the two first causes.

therefore in my experience, (1) the scientists who taught me did believe that there needed to be two first causes (of life, and of the universe), and (2) that they did have a theory for those first causes.

(3) I do not hold that supernatural explanations have equal footing with natural explanations in science. You have generalized my discussion of the two first causes to relating to non first causes, and hence you misunderstand me. I hold that neither science nor religion can provide objective proof for either of the two first causes.

fyi, I do not hold that supernatural explanations have equal footing with natural explanations for observable and measurable events.

(4) No I don't hold that, I hold that there are degree's of proof and degree's of truth. I hold that in the case of the two first causes we currently do not have conclusive proof for scientific models, nor do we have conclusive proof for the religious models. - therefore in these two cases, they do have equal validity, and that this validity is based in the subjective.

Come on, I don't imply that science is based on beliefs, I state that science is based upon measuring and observing.

I hold and have stated that any scientist who states how the two first causes happened is expressing an opinion - and hence that is not science, it has the same weight as a creationist statement regarding the two first causes, that being belief, because the two first causes are not measurable nor observable.

In my opinion the most accurate thing anyone can say about the two first causes, is - "They happened"... after that the discussion falls into belief's and whilst belief is fun to discuss, it is fallacious to discuss unprovable belief as if it were fact.

Maybe you are correct to state that there is no need of a first cause... yet this is not intuitive to me, I would like to here your argument for why you hold that there is not a moment or point when the universe began, nor a moment or point when the first life began.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yet nowhere in the Big Bang theory, or in the Theory of Evolution is cause a mitigating factor.
All evidence points to the Big Bang, that is why it is taught as such, and the ToE is backed by more evidence than the Theory of Gravity, or Circuit Theory.

So what is your problem with educating based on evidence?

 

[Peacewise]

But therein lies the problem in trying to teach creationism in schools. Which creation myth would they pick?
Should they teach children the story of god creating the world in 6 days some 6,000-10,000 years ago?
Maybe teach them about how the great Mbombo vomited up the Sun, Moon, and Stars?
How about the classical Greek myth of creation?
Heck, go to Wikipedia and search "Creation myth". There's no shortage of them to pick from.

The problem in teaching creationism in the science classes is you wouldn't be able to pick and choose your mythology. Even if you started out simply by teaching Intelligent Design it would still only be a matter of time before another religious group started to say that they were being discriminated against and wanted their myth taught in the science classroom as well. Once it started there would be no stopping it.

Well, the term "Atheist" is closer to what I believe than "Agnostic". I don't believe that the existence of god is ultimately unknowable. I don't personally believe in a god but I won't go so far as to say I know there is no god.

If you really want to know where I stand then let's take the scale laid out in the book The God Delusion

I consider myself a 6 on that scale, so if I were going to use the correct term for my religion I would use "De facto atheist".

There should be little problem imo...

Teach known and proven science in the science classes, and teach the various beliefs about the two first causes in a philosophy class.

Regarding the teaching of the two first causes I think i would take a wide approach, perhaps teaching Christian, Islam, Buddhist and Hindu, and cosmology and the appropriate biological/chemical beliefs, in this fashion the religious would not step on the toes of the scientists, nor would the scientists step on the toes of the religious.

Thanks for that 1 though 7 description, I see that Dawkins has redefined the terms agnostic and atheist, no wonder there is miscommunication on the matter, the dictionary definitions have been discarded by a premier and vocal atheist, seems to me that is an example of a redefinition fallacy.
Logical Fallacy: Redefinition

 

[Jose Fly]

Just going by what I was taught in school.
In science classes...

I was taught the Big Bang Theory as the how of the creation of the universe, and I recall it was stated as fact.

I recall that it was taught that chance was what brought together the first set of molecules that formed rna, then dna, then organisms and so on, well roughly something like that it was over 20 years ago - and likewise this was stated as fact, yet there was a qualification that this could not be reproduced yet.

Then either you have a bad memory, or had a relatively poor science education.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I just posted some of this over in the (Age Of The Earth) thread.

Now, for our creationist friends, let's consider the following...

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Farthest known galaxy in the Universe discovered
"Located an estimated 13 billion light-years away, the object is being viewed at a time only 750 million years after the big bang, when the Universe was barely 5 percent of its current age."


And the following...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0331122543.htm
" In the case of LBG-2377, scientists believe the light has been traveling for 11.4 billion years, beginning just a few billion years after the Big Bang when the universe was only 15 percent of its current age. By comparison, the Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The process of galaxy formation largely is a mystery. Current theory is that large galaxies formed over time from the interaction and merging of smaller galaxies. This process began more than 12 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang."

I am not impressed with the claims of creationist because of the evidence above. The earth is not young. It's even older than what most OECs believe so the creation story in the bible is myth.

We have an abundance of evidence the earth is billions of years old as well as having an overwhelming amount of evidence to support evolution.

Look, consider this. The (Andromeda Galaxy) is 2,500,000 light years from earth. It's one of the closest galaxies to earth ([youtube]8imxPVIr_u0[/youtube]
Nearest Galaxies). It takes 2.5 million years for the light from that galaxy to reach earth. That light is traveling at 186,000 miles per second (Speed Of Light).

There is no young earth because all the evidence, internal to earth as well as external, point to an very, very old earth. Evolution is consistent with earth being old not young nor needing a creator/IDer to make it happen.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Peacewise,
Still trying to figure out your references to causes.

1. In regards to the Big Bang, a cause has not been shown to be necessary for the big Bang or the singularity. Nor is there an accepted theory of what may have caused, if necessary, either one.
2. In regards to Evolution, evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, that is a completely different area of study. While the mechanisms of evolution are fairly well known, the mechanisms of abiogenesis are still in the hypothesis stage.

In what science classes are these unknown causes being taught as facts?

 

[Peacewise]

In my high school science classes.

 

[Jose Fly]

In my high school science classes.

So your understanding of the state of the science comes from your high school science teacher?

 

[tumbleweed41]

In my high school science classes.

Are you telling me that in High School, the cause of the Big Bang, and the cause, or mechanism, for abiogenesis were known and taught as fact?

I find that hard to believe.

 

[Peacewise]

In part yes, but my knowledge has grown since high school.

But the issue of what is taught in high school science is relevant, because a lot of people do get their understanding of the state of science from their high school teacher... that is what it is there for!

To teach beliefs in a science class is not scientific, hence why teach about the two first causes, of the universe or life in science?

 

[Peacewise]

I was taught the Big Bang Theory as the how of the creation of the universe, and I recall it was stated as fact.

I recall that it was taught that chance was what brought together the first set of molecules that formed rna, then dna, then organisms and so on, well roughly something like that it was over 20 years ago - and likewise this was stated as fact, yet there was a qualification that this could not be reproduced yet.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I was taught the Big Bang Theory as the how of the creation of the universe, and I recall it was stated as fact.

Since all available evidence points to the Big Bang Theory, I would say that it is as much a fact as Gravity Theory and Circuit Theory.
However, the cause, if one is needed, is not known, nor do we have any good scientific evidence directing us as to what the cause of the Big Bang was.
So there was no misdirection or "belief" taught to you in that regard.

I recall that it was taught that chance was what brought together the first set of molecules that formed rna, then dna, then organisms and so on, well roughly something like that it was over 20 years ago - and likewise this was stated as fact, yet there was a qualification that this could not be reproduced yet.

So, you assert that your High School science teacher taught that abiogenesis occurred by chance, rather than through natural occurrence following natural law.
In this your teacher was mistaken.
We know that abiogenesis is the most likely way that life first formed, but as of yet, there is no empirical evidence to support it as a scientific fact. Although we do know that it is possible.
Fortunately, the ToE does not rest on abiogenesis, nor does the scientific community support the teaching of hypothesis as fact or theory.

 

[Jose Fly]

To teach beliefs in a science class is not scientific, hence why teach about the two first causes, of the universe or life in science?

Yet the point you continually ignore is that you're equating "don't know absolutely everything" with "mere belief". That's a serious flaw in your position that you seem deliberately oblivious to.

 

[Peacewise]

Codswallop Jose Fly.
I hold that we have no conclusive evidence about the two first causes - and therefore the various models of the first causes are beliefs.

We cannot observe the two first causes and we cannot measure them, nor can we reproduce them - hence no conclusive evidence, hence a belief.

I don't see any flaw in that reasoning.