First cause of the universe.

[Wildswanderer]

So the scientific paper is not a scientific paper.

Exactly. Lots of those exist, wild speculation masquerading as science.

 

[Wildswanderer]

what is the likely cause of the bb

And that is?

 

[Wildswanderer]

As soon as you get some reliable evidence for the supernatural then you can start to propose it as an explanation. Right now we do not have any good reason to believe that the supernatural exists.

Except for the testimony of countless individuals that aren't so close minded.

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly. Lots of those exist, wild speculation masquerading as science.

As i have said and you seem to have deliberately ignored, observed phenomena and mathematics.
You may attempt to discredit it and misrepresent it all you want, luckily it does not need your approval to be a scientific paper.

 

[ChristineM]

And that is?

I know of 32 hypothesis, the paper that you gleefully mock is one of them. Now because of your poor attitude towards the one offered do you really think i would offer more?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

only if you believe the impossible causes itself.

Nothing is impossible simply because you can't see how it can be, including snowflakes, rivers, woods, and solar systems organizing themselves from precursors.

We can't even replicate it in a lab.

You seem to think that's an argument against abiogenesis or against order arising from chaos. It is not.

You also seem to have a wrong idea of what reproducibility means in science (and probably observation as well), and what its place is there. It doesn't mean reproducing (or observing) the past.

That's not something from nothing either

I have never claimed that something came from nothing. I gave a list of four logically possible candidates for the answer to why the universe is here (see below), and said that none of these can be ruled in or out at this time, if ever. Only I-2 has something coming from nothing. The universe:

I. Has no cause

1. It has always existed
2. It came into existence uncaused

II. Has a prior cause

1. It is conscious (a deity)
2. It is an unconscious substance (multiverse)

Not science, but guessing.

It's you that is guessing here. You're guessing God (II-1). I'm not guessing at all. I've enumerated logical possibilities and resisted guessing between them, although these can be ordered, the three naturalistic possibilities outranking (but not eliminating) the supernatural one. Parsimony makes the one requiring its own realm of reality inhabited by a conscious tri-omni agent the least likely, the three not requiring any of that being more parsimonious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except for the testimony of countless individuals that aren't so close minded.

There is a reason that "testimony" is not of much value. And it has nothing to do with being close minded.

But I understand. When one is desperate one will try to claim that almost anything is evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly. Lots of those exist, wild speculation masquerading as science.

You have wild speculation. Scientists do not go by those. That paper is based upon observed phenomena and math. I think that there is a word for that . . . What was it? Oh yeah! Now I remember: Science.

 

[Kfox]

So what is "is"? We are doing ontology now. And how do you know all that "is". Do you know all that "is" or do you believe you know?

You're the only one doing ontology, I'm just trying to get a straight answer from you. Again; if the term is outdated, what is the new term for all that exist?

 

[Kfox]

Correct, and definitions change over time.

If this definition had changed over time, you would have been able to answer my question by now. Obviously the term has not changed; hence your response

You don't get to say that we have to follow old outdated definitions.

And you don't get to claim there are new definitions unless they are. If there were, you would have provided one by now.

 

[Kfox]

Wau! You conflate different version of right/true and you still have learn to doubt words you take for granted. Including real, things and exist.

Are you gonna keep talking in circles? Or are you gonna answer my question. Again; what is the new word for "all that exist"?

 

[Kfox]

Yes, and it has meaning, it is a sign and it has a referent. You conflate meaning and referent.

No, I provided the definition of the word.

No, you use all, real, is, exist, thing, right, wrong and so on and explain how we know all that. You have made the claims. You do the proofs.

I already provided the proof; an outside source called a dictionary.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If this definition had changed over time, you would have been able to answer my question by now. Obviously the term has not changed; hence your response

And you don't get to claim there are new definitions unless they are. If there were, you would have provided one by now.

I answered your question a long time ago.

 

[ChristineM]

If this definition had changed over time, you would have been able to answer my question by now. Obviously the term has not changed; hence your response

And you don't get to claim there are new definitions unless they are. If there were, you would have provided one by now.

I hsve provided the modern definition, you claimed it was old despite not being the same as your old definition. Sounds to me like you have come unstuck and you are desperately trying your cover your ***

 

[Wildswanderer]

. Has no cause

1. It has always existed
2. It came into existence uncaused

II. Has a prior cause

1. It is conscious (a deity)
2. It is an unconscious substance (multiverse)

None of those are logical except a conscious deity. You need to toss out the multi verse because it's not an explanation at all, just the opposite. Show me an uncaused cause. Show me something that has no beginning. You are still invoking the miraculous, apparently you just can't see that.

 

[ChristineM]

None of those are logical except a conscious deity. You need to toss out the multi verse because it's not an explanation at all, just the opposite. Show me an uncaused cause. Show me something that has no beginning. You are still invoking the miraculous, apparently you just can't see that.

Says the guy who says an uncaused god with no beginning did it and claims that to be logical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

None of those are logical except a conscious deity. You need to toss out the multi verse because it's not an explanation at all, just the opposite. Show me an uncaused cause. Show me something that has no beginning. You are still invoking the miraculous, apparently you just can't see that.

Please explain how a conscious deity is "logical". I do not think that you understand the meaning of that word.


And an "uncaused cause"? Do you mean an "uncaused event"? You need to define your phrases properly if you want a serious answer.

 

[Polymath257]

"An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, "

Not science. An idea.

Actually, yes, science. I can point to specific scientific papers discussing this possibility if you are curious.

 

[Polymath257]

Then why not allow the supernatural as a possible explanation, if you don't know?

Because it over-complicates things by 1) not giving any actual explanations, 2) introducing new objects that cannot be observed, 3) provides no way of testing its ideas, and 4) unnecessarily multiplies assumptions.

 

[Polymath257]

As soon as you get some reliable evidence for the supernatural then you can start to propose it as an explanation. Right now we do not have any good reason to believe that the supernatural exists.

Even better, give a way of testing between the thousands of different supernatural 'explanations' with a goal of eliminating those that are false. By what criteria do we determine a supernatural 'explanation' is wrong?