The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[1robin]

Seems to me the odds would get better with intent but you cant show that intent was existing at the big bang. God could have 100 choices and not one decision would make the other 99 choices less probable. What does sound improbable is a god predicting from the beginning against all odds, god could just do what he wants and the new probabilities still stay the same. Gods random acts are as probable as acts that have intent, however if god has intent then there is a prior cause. Chance works much better in allowing an act with no prior intent.

I can't prove it but I can show that the evidence for it is much better than the no evidence it could have happened without it. Faith has no burden of proof. Faith is only required to be free of a defeater. I raise the bar and claim theology has the best explanation for things but proof is not required. A universe popping into existence has no explanation without God. Every indication suggests a being created it. By using philosophic principles known for thousands of years you can justifiably say:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. All the evidence suggest the universe begin to exist. The universe has a cause.
2. Everything that exists has an explanation either within it's self or external to its self.
3. The universe does not contain an explanation of it's self or a cause of it's self within it's self.
4. The universes cause and explanation lay outside of the universe. The universe is all natural entities, so it's cause is a non-natural entity.
5. Very few things fit that requirement. Abstract concepts and disembodied minds. Abstract concepts are not causal. Only an abstract mind is left.
6. Out of the few disembodied minds that also meet all other conditions the Biblical God is by far the most likely. God is the most likely cause and explanation of the universe.
7. Other factors can come from sufficient causation. Whatever the cause it must be astronomically intelligent, unimaginably powerful, non-material, independent of time, independent of space, etc..... Only the Biblical God meets all these requirements.


Not proof but by far the best explanation that exists. The probability of getting a universe without something very similar to God are exactly zero.

 

[idav]

Don't have to when you constantly remind me of it.

There is some reason your claims are perfectly and utterly wrong. I was being generous and saying you had not thought them through.

1. The history of science, especially modern abstract science is dominated by theists. Limiting that to ultra modern science which stands on theistic science in al aspects is not just a tactic it is an arbitrary and intellectually dishonest one.
2. Not only was abstract science founded by theists it was founded on theism. They believed a rational God would create a rational universe and set out to find that rationality in it and did.
3. Ultra modern science as opposed to theistic science jumps to not just pure conjectured conclusions but even ones that defy evidence so often I have given up on my chose field in these areas.
4. I have a degree in mathematics and work in a avionics lab doing science every day. I have studied the history of science. I know it's nature and foundations well enough to know that everything you have said is inconsistent with them.

I am not required to make you like me. I am required to give truth whether anyone likes it or not and leave it there. I am not even required to bother with whether you accept it or not. I have no control over that and am not responsible for it. Like the truth or hate it and attack it. It is up to you. Science (real science not science fiction) is not only no enemy to faith it is evidence for it.

I just wanted to note a little irony here that theists founded science and they still haven't found god. Science has certainly come a long way though, not like they have nothing to show for it. The big bang model was theorized before we actually could see it, but people liked it even with a god model and still do. Science theorizes the stuff because there is evidence for it. The faith still clings as science uncovers knowledge while still not finding god.

 

[1robin]

What do you mean? You quoted the link to the calculations in your own post...

Yes exactly the point. "Just go back ten generations and the chances of you being born at all is at most 1 in 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000". Obviously the agent must have intended exactly you to be born because with those odds against exactly you being born it is unthinkable that your DNA could be due to chance? Isn't that what you're saying?

You are right. When I quoted your post the link emphasis formatting was dropped. Anyway in my world view this would all have been determined so it is accounted for. However getting any human in a causal chain that starts with humanity or even life has virtually no equality for a causal chain that starts with nothing then gets a universe out of nothing and the next trillion requirements needed for any life at all. So it is not a good argument for that. Interesting but not very applicable.

Did you understand that every improbability I mentioned is from secular science? It is not my mathematics that suggest this universe is fine tuned it is sciences.

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.

Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)

Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." (19)

Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." (20)

Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." (22)

Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." (23)

Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (24)

Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." (25)

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindAntony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." (26)

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science." (27)
Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe

 

[1robin]

I just wanted to note a little irony here that theists founded science and they still haven't found god. Science has certainly come a long way though, not like they have nothing to show for it. The big bang model was theorized before we actually could see it, but people liked it even with a god model and still do. Science theorizes the stuff because there is evidence for it. The faith still clings as science uncovers knowledge while still not finding god.

Crap this is exasperating. They claim they have found God themselves. However God is not a scientific question. Natural science does not resolve supernatural issues. It may add weight to them but it will not reveal them. Supernatural claims are confirmed through supernatural methods. Those men believed they had found God and then they did some science and found both consistent. You might as well laugh and point out the irony in that no ruler can tell us how hot the sun is?

 

[idav]

I can't prove it but I can show that the evidence for it is much better than the no evidence it could have happened without it. Faith has no burden of proof. Faith is only required to be free of a defeater. I raise the bar and claim theology has the best explanation for things but proof is not required. A universe popping into existence has no explanation without God. Every indication suggests a being created it. By using philosophic principles known for thousands of years you can justifiably say:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. All the evidence suggest the universe begin to exist. The universe has a cause.
2. Everything that exists has an explanation either within it's self or external to its self.
3. The universe does not contain an explanation of it's self or a cause of it's self within it's self.
4. The universes cause and explanation lay outside of the universe. The universe is all natural entities, so it's cause is a non-natural entity.
5. Very few things fit that requirement. Abstract concepts and disembodied minds. Abstract concepts are not causal. Only an abstract mind is left.
6. Out of the few disembodied minds that also meet all other conditions the Biblical God is by far the most likely. God is the most likely cause and explanation of the universe.
7. Other factors can come from sufficient causation. Whatever the cause it must be astronomically intelligent, unimaginably powerful, non-material, independent of time, independent of space, etc..... Only the Biblical God meets all these requirements.


Not proof but by far the best explanation that exists. The probability of getting a universe without something very similar to God are exactly zero.

I would like to go over that with you lets start with the premise.

There isn't any proof that anything began to exist. Perhaps start with your evidence that the universe began to exist. The big bang model supports multi-verse so how does it mean a beginning?

 

[idav]

2. Everything that exists has an explanation either within it's self or external to its self.
3. The universe does not contain an explanation of it's self or a cause of it's self within it's self.

I want to address these as well. I agree with 2 but we have no evidence for 3 either. How do we know it didn't cause itself, scientists have theories for that, science does not assume an external agent for the universe. On that same note since god is self starting then that may as well be the singularity.

 

[viole]

Perhaps. I really lost my fascination with theoretical science while in college. Maybe black holes can help with space travel somehow down the road. Can you even think of a benefit to the TOE that genetics alone would not produce? I can't.

Well, I guess we need space travel before we can reach that black hole. Concerning possible applications of the theory of evolution might include medicine, agriculture, bioinformatics, health policies and, last but not least, to **** off theists

I only use it if it involves something that is knowable as suggestive not proof. For example how many people believe there are men on Pluto is not meaningful since we can't know, but claims that men has been visited by aliens if in huge numbers might be suggestive because we can know that. But yes it is tricky.

Yes, and the fact that virtually all scientists agree on the TOE might also be suggestive. And this is the problem. If you insist we can only have indirect evidence of TOE, then I might retort that we have only indirect evidence of the expansion of space which is based on modern physics we don't fully understand yet, as you would put it. Mainly general relativity which forms the basis of BB cosmology.

I don't think at the time smell differentiated to much. I think everyone probably stank pretty bad. My point was this cannot be evaluated by a study of the natural because this was not a natural event.

You doubt the historicity of the Ark, but accept the historicity of someone who lived three days in a big fish?

I can't remember the context but I remember I was right. Give up?

Surely not. The context is that you think the Universe is finite. There is no evidence, even assuming the BB, that this is the case. Cosmologists cannot tell you, even if they all accept the BB. And it is also pretty clear why, if you think a moment about it.

Let me ask you this. If in 1980 some obscure Russian technician had said it was a launch instead of a malfunction would you still prefer modernity in a nuclear waste land? If you were wrong there would be no body around to know.

Sure. Germans say: it is better an end with horror than a horror without end. But nevertheless we had (almost) peace in Europe since 70 years, which is a record, probably. So, up to now, it is only a threat of an end with horror which is even better than its instantiation. And probably the threat contributes to its lack of being instantiated.

Ok the Sun's accurate weight down to a thousand decimal places exists regardless of our knowing it. The factual truth of God's existence exists whether you know it or not. I am not stuck on the term if you do not like the word "knowledge" then substitute one you do like. I acre about the point not the semantics.

Do you think there is an upper limit to the objective accuracy concerning the weight of the sun?

Quantity was not relevant (especially for later civilizations). Who originated it would be important depending on what it was. I don't think Aqueducts would be miraculous at any point. They are very easily deduced from nature, which is why I did not list it originally. Now Germ theory is a whole other ball game. It is counter intuitive and completely unknowable which is why even after Israel knew about it, 3000 years later we were still killing people by the tens of thousands in our ignorance.

Germ theory? Are you talking of clear evidence that the Bible postulates the existence of microscopic pathogens?

No because the slavery I referred to is 19th century chattel slavery. One that was in a whole other time. Biblical "slavery" was almost exclusively voluntary debt slavery. One person would owe another. He would contract his labor to a third person who would pay off his debt. There was another type of lifelong slavery that had to do with people like prisoners of war but it was not chattel slavery. Biblical slavery was a crude form of welfare and bankruptcy that our sin required. God never liked it or divorce but our faults made them necessary at least for that time frame. Regardless the biblical rules about it are the most benevolent in the ANE. Now make of that what you will but it will never be modern slavery. My point was that the slavery we think of could only be broken using a foundation only God provides. If I wanted to stop slavery I can't appeal to atheism. I could kill slavers as an atheist but I can only find foundation for doing so in theism. Whether you agree or not do you get my drift?

What the heaven are you talking about? I am not aware of any commandment that prohibits possessions of another human being. I think it could have easily taken the place of some other useless one, like prohibiting graven images of God.

Btw. Are graven images of Jesus on a cross ok, if Jesus is God?

The problems existence does not depend on your belief. Whatever it's cost to you is only dependent only on it's existing. If it does exist your paying a price whether you believe or not. I would even argue that even if God does not exist there is a cost to chunking faith. I would probably do so anyway as I hate false hope but it would cause problems.

I do not experience any inconvenience whatsoever from being an atheist and coming from a country of atheists. And I could say that you are paying a price for not believing in Zeus or any other possible deity who could exist.

In that case I did not claim a miraculous cause but there is no loss of probability to claiming so. The miraculous has no probability effect on anything. For example the idea that water turned to wine by miraculous means does not suffer loss by claiming it miraculous. A miracle by it's nature is an exception.

Well, everybody can claim anything. I also have no loss by claiming that Elvis is still alive, if he is indeed still alive. It is tautological. The problem is that there is so much evidence of Elvis being alive as there is of water having turned into wine. They are nice stories, you know?

Well it depends. I am certainly obligated to and in fact if insisted upon I will waste much time in examining them. However if not insisted upon circumstances and mood get involved. Actually it is a personal obligation not a formal one. In professional debates no one is required to produce every scrap of data to prove every claim they make. I take on the obligation but do not technically have one. Anyway if you really want to get into it I will.

Well, it is your call. If you use science, then be ready to be called out.

I don't think so. If you claim that in spite of the tendency of everything to come apart or deconstruct over time that in one specific and exclusive area this trend acts in the exact opposite way then only an example with that level of complexity can add to the reliability of your claim. Showing rocks kind of get sorted by size, at times, and in certain places does not indicate that 3.2 billion bits can assemble in the right order to be DNA. Likes with likes are very relevant here.

This sorting of rocks is a clear example of entropy reduction by natural means, so thermodynamics is not a concern, as expected. And you make the unsubstantiated assumption that the first living beings had a complex genome. There is no evidence of that, considering that incremental complexity in the genome can arise naturally, as evolution by natural selection shows. So, the mechanisms are there. Even if you do not believe them, i don't see how you can defeat them, at least in principle.

I think it would but I have as of yet not resolved to get into that long and torturous argument.

Your humor is either on or off or my comprehension must be. I do not see how the type of car is relevant to my response.

Continued below:

Well, I was referring to my driving-against-the-traffic "joke". You are still driving on one of the first cars, meaning you are stalling in the 18th century for what concerns your scientific knowledge and what you think is scientific orthodoxy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

You are right. When I quoted your post the link emphasis formatting was dropped. Anyway in my world view this would all have been determined so it is accounted for.

Do you really not understand the implications of the numbers I gave you? Do you not understand how improbable it is that exactly your DNA could have appeared just by chance? You made a list earlier and made a big point out of how absurdly improbable it was that a universe that could turn non-life into life could appear by chance. Why in the world don't you simply follow the same line of reasoning and say that just ten generations ago the chances of you coming into existence was absurdly small, in fact 1 to 6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 against and this proves that your DNA must have been personally designed and created by your god?

 

[viole]

I should. It was specifically designed to be robust. It was designed to make irrelevant all the ambiguities and unknowns involved in many less robust theory. It was supposed to be rigorous and bulletproof and I find it to be such.

Therefore, you accept general relativity, geodesics and manifolds as a correct representation of our reality. Correct?

How are cats in a box any help? Another Schrodinger perhaps? That was kind of a trick. The explanation I hear so often is that no mathematics works for that event. It appears the atom does not go anywhere but that the information that represents the atom's construction mysterious get transferred and rebuilds another atom in another place virtually identical to the first. I have never heard any explanation for that process much less a mathematical one. It's a trick another way as well. If you have another explanation that would just show that no general agreement exists as I have said.

Cats in a box? What? True, he is the same person, bit he also put down the basic equations of (non relativistic) quantum mechanics, as you probably know

And what do you mean with atoms going anywhere? Or being rebuilt? Can you make a more precise example of what you mean?

I know what it takes to have competence in the mathematical subjects you mention. It would be at least a masters for familiarity plus many years experience for competence. Now if you do not have this or it's equivalent (and very few do) I am reluctant to have confidence in what you state of that type. That is why I asked for credentials. Without it I just can't grant you competence with them because so few have it and a forum is not where you would expect to find them.

You see the problem? You would give credibility to my claims just because I put some important sounding titles on the table.

It is not surprising, after all, that many creationists videos and books like to stress the titles of the author. PhD, professor of this and that, wears a tie, has glasses and looks important.

For the fact that he is a Phd, makes his claims much more believable and I am not totally silly for not being able of thinking for myself and for believing the same stuff he believes.

Benzene is the compound C6H6. Did I say atom instead of molecule? It makes little difference either way. I heard it in Chemistry which I hated. My instructor was Asian and invented many new elements. I remember he said crom-i-um instead of Chromium constantly.

So, what quantum mechanical experiment concerning benzene are you addressing here?

It is still the deep-end and is still unexplained. I just saw an atheist scientist use it to some bizarre purpose but he admitted as is well known that no one yet has figured out why this occurs. Hard to use what is not known to prove anything. I view science as a graph plot versus reliability and thorough understanding. It is not an age issue.

I think it is pretty much understood. Predictions are amazing.

It just collides with intuition. Alas, nature does not care about the adaptive intuition of some apes.

Well given the Quantum I at least can see no threat to the theorem. Has anyone asked Vilenkin to give his latest review given the state of the Quantum. I like Vilenkin do not make absolutes in this case. I only say that according to the best science we have currently the best conclusion is X but maybe one day some Y will change that. That allows for your deep end if it ever gets shallower but still at this time your stuck with no recourse that I snot in this deepest most unknown section of knowledge. We should be able to leave it there as it is true.

Yes, and i posted you his email to Craig. The theorem is valid only if the premises are right, like any theorem. I don't think that the Quantum is a threat either, bit there is no theorem covering that, for the simple reason that we have no viable theory that marries classical relativity with the quantum.

Again until the quantum is better understood I do not see how this is meaningful. You might as well be saying well the Antikythera machine or ancient alien theory is evidence against the modern evolution of science. Well I can't say that is impossible but it is not a persuasive or meaningful counter position based on our knowledge of it at this time. Plus another problem. The Quantum even once it is understood sufficient by Phd's will not be understood by the average person. So even when that occurs there will still be a persuasive gap there. Plus just gong by probability and the lack of credential so far I have trouble believing you understand these issues sufficiently. If you do why are you wasting time here every day instead of in a lab making bank?

I think the quantum is pretty well understood. Relativity and gravitation are pretty well understood, too. What is not understood yet is how the two match when you have both regimes in place. And the latter includes the conditions at the Big Bang.

No I do not but I think that is the first time I have heard that question. Let me add something here. I can't imagine being able to do so now, but I can imagine that I could learn if hedonism or some other drive trumped my morality and I started down that road. People can develop sexual desire for inanimate objects so I can't put anything past our moral insanity.

I think it is quite obvious. The ones who think that they can choose their sexual orientation can only be bisexuals.

That is not really a moral claim. It is very conditional and specific. God also said to not eat pork and that was not a moral demand. It gets confusing because disobedience in general might be moral but the act it's self not. There can be situational theological ethics that are not purely moral issues. Anyway lets simplify this. I would suggest you select another action like murder, lying, torture or something similar.

Well, we agree on those, mostly. So, no guide needed. Nobody checks a manual to see whether torturing babies is suboptimal.

What is needed is an objective guide for the controversial issues.

I only rarely make a claim that I will later not want to hash out in detail. However I think you can easily see ho that can occur from time to time. Many times I make secondary points to support a primary one. I find your side gets obsessed with semantics and technicalities to the exclusion of the whole point the secondary claim was made at all. For example whether benzene or molecule was the proper term is irrelevant. The point is that nature can never ever tell what should be. I did not want to have a chemistry discussion.

i was addressing QM, not organic chemistry. You came out with benzene out of the blue.

And science requires precise language. We prefer to leave fuzziness to the the theologians, lol.

I never even hinted at that. I said in my experience some science is more reliable than others. I have grown to be very skeptical of theoretical science but even some of that is intuitive and easily grasped. It is the purely abstract and not well known and new that I have trouble having confidence in. The last straw was at a faculty dinner where the same scientists argued passionately for both holographic theory and string theory which are mutually exclusive.

Your problem is that you rely on intuition. Not a wise think to do. Even Plantinga realized that our belief generating mechanisms are unreliable if natural evolution is true, as it is.

I can also add that even my experience with proven 90's technology that is tested constantly I find little opportunity for confidence. If you worked in my F-15 lab you would never feel the same about science again. Not a single instrument new or old works as advertised and this is life and death stuff.

Well, this looks like a technological or quality assurance problem and not necessarily a problem with the underlying principles. I wonder anyone would doubt quantum mechanics because some transistors don't work as advertised.

My thermostat in my house in Kiruna also breaks constantly. And this is also life or death in north Sweden. Does that entail that the laws of thermodynamics are not reliable science?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ArtieE]

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. All the evidence suggest the universe begin to exist. The universe has a cause.

Yepp.

"the universe arose out of nothingness during the Big Bang which means that nothing must have somehow turned into something. How could that be possible?

Due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, nothing transforms into something all the time. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that a system can never have precisely zero energy and since energy and mass are equivalent, pairs of particles can form spontaneously as long as they annihilate one another very quickly.

The less energy such a system has, the longer it can stick around. Thanks to gravity – the only force that always attracts – the net energy balance of the universe may be as close to zero as you can get. This makes its lifespan of almost 14 billion years plausible.

If you take inflation into account, which physicists think caused rapid expansion in the early universe, we begin to see why MIT physicist Alan Guth calls the universe the "ultimate free lunch."

Watch the video in the link. New Scientist TV: How the universe appeared from nothing

So where do we put in your god? You can blame him for creating those particle pairs?

 

[Sapiens]

Boy this just keeps getting worse. Did Newton, Pascal, Faraday, Di Vinci, Descartes, Copernicus, Galileo, kepler, Augustine, Volta, Ampere, Babbage, Maxwell, Riemann, Lavoisier, Marconi, Carver, Hershel, etc times thousands only have the equivalent of a modern middle school education? Not even close. Most of what they discovered is not even available in high school. I have a degree in math and some of the stuff they dreamed up I still can't understand.

I'll stand by my statement. What I said was "knew more." Let's keep it simple, for the moment, how many of the "greats" even knew how many planets there were, how many moons circle other planets, simple Mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.? Who'd do better on a standardized 8th grade science test? The "greats" or a class of 8th grade GT kids?

A degree in math ... I should have guessed.

 

[Thief]

I'll stand by my statement. What I said was "knew more." Let's keep it simple, for the moment, how many of the "greats" even knew how many planets there were, how many moons circle other planets, simple Mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.? Who'd do better on a standardized 8th grade science test? The "greats" or a class of 8th grade GT kids?

A degree in math ... I should have guessed.

I participated in a nationwide comparison test.(eighth grade)

It was rigidly done with monitors watching every move.
The intent was to find which schools do well or better.

I got a rank of superior in science.
But I grew up reading encyclopedias.....for a hobby.

Does that count?

Or does my belief in God wipe the blackboard clean?

 

[Sapiens]

I participated in a nationwide comparison test.(eighth grade)

It was rigidly done with monitors watching every move.
The intent was to find which schools do well or better.

I got a rank of superior in science.
But I grew up reading encyclopedias.....for a hobby.

Does that count?

Or does my belief in God wipe the blackboard clean?

I'd guess that means that you knew more at 8th grade that most of the "greats" did on their deathbed.:clap

Where you went wrong after that is anyone's guess.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Who'd do better on a standardized 8th grade science test? The "greats" or a class of 8th grade GT kids?

How completely idiotic. Who'd do better on X test custom made for X population? X population or Y? Physicists before 1925 knew more about quantum physics than today's beginning graduate physicists even though it didn't really exist (QM wasn't really integrated into "modern" physics until after both Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Schrodinger's wave mechanics). Darwin, Mendel, Huxley, and others knew far more about evolution prior to the 1950s publication by Watson & Crick on the double helix, yet couldn't know basic, easily memorized yet little understood facts that pre-teens are capable of regurgitating.

Your test is seriously whether or not children can regurgitate spoon-fed sentences? By your logic, most high school students know more about calculus than did Newton, Leibniz, Euler, Riemann, Cauchy, Weierstraß, Lebesgue, and even the founder of neo-classical analysis. Of course, empirical studies show that college students in calculus are incapable of solving non-trivial calculus problems that Archimedes could, but no doubt your keen understanding of developmental cognition, the history and philosophy of the sciences, and your intimate knowledge of the distinctions between memorization and comprehension negate the utterly obvious conclusion that 12-year-olds know nothing compared to intellectual giants like Gauss despite their ability to parrot information.

Congratulations, you have shown that, like an 8th grader, you can regurgitate something of the discoveries of others.

 

[cottage]

I can't prove it but I can show that the evidence for it is much better than the no evidence it could have happened without it. Faith has no burden of proof. Faith is only required to be free of a defeater. I raise the bar and claim theology has the best explanation for things but proof is not required. A universe popping into existence has no explanation without God. Every indication suggests a being created it. By using philosophic principles known for thousands of years you can justifiably say:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. All the evidence suggest the universe begin to exist. The universe has a cause.

You’ve made three statements there. The first is sophistically inferred since no objects in the world are observed to begin to exist from nothing; all we are aware of is that matter is continually changing form. The second invites no objection, and the third does not follow from the first.

2. Everything that exists has an explanation either within it's self or external to its self.

Everything that exists may have what is trivially understood as an explanation, that is to say observed to be conjoined or associated in experience with some other thing, but there is no demonstrable cause (The Problem of Causal Inference).

3. The universe does not contain an explanation of it's self or a cause of it's self within it's self.

“Explanation” and “a cause” is the same thing. So explain to me by what self-evident rule or principle must the universe have a cause since “everything that begins to exist” is a false inference as I explained in #1.

4. The universes cause and explanation lay outside of the universe. The universe is all natural entities, so it's cause is a non-natural entity.

Until you can demonstrate the truth of your first statement in #1 then your assertions here do not follow.

5. Very few things fit that requirement. Abstract concepts and disembodied minds. Abstract concepts are not causal. Only an abstract mind is left.

This irrelevant and of no consequence given my replies above.

6. Out of the few disembodied minds that also meet all other conditions the Biblical God is by far the most likely. God is the most likely cause and explanation of the universe.

I’m not clear about what you’re saying here. There is no proof of (what I believe you mean) un-bodied minds.

7. Other factors can come from sufficient causation. Whatever the cause it must be astronomically intelligent, unimaginably powerful, non-material, independent of time, independent of space, etc..... Only the Biblical God meets all these requirements.

Did you mean “efficient causation”?

The overall argument that you’ve given is pure William Lane Craig and presents the same logical difficulties that I’ve discussed with you on previous occasions. And they are:

1)The Problem of Causal Inference; causation being non-demonstrable. 2)The contradiction that is implied by Necessary Being that is dependent upon a contingent principle. 3)The absurdity where a personal, intelligent, conscious being who by definition is self-sufficient in all things is given an anthropomorphic explanation.

I’m very happy to expand on all of these points subject to your response.

 

[Thief]

I'd guess that means that you knew more at 8th grade that most of the "greats" did on their deathbed.:clap

Where you went wrong after that is anyone's guess.

Be a bit more specific.

 

[viole]

A degree in math ... I should have guessed.

And the problem with having a degree in math is...?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Sapiens]

And the problem with having a degree in math is...?

Ciao

- viole

Mathematicians, in my experience, tend to be dogmatic, black and white thinkers with little global view who regularly glom on to magical thinking. While they can be quite creative within rather narrow boundaries, if they have not made "their significant contribution" by age thirty, or so, they go through life resentful and unfulfilled.

 

[1robin]

I'll stand by my statement. What I said was "knew more." Let's keep it simple, for the moment, how many of the "greats" even knew how many planets there were, how many moons circle other planets, simple Mendelian genetics, DNA, etc.? Who'd do better on a standardized 8th grade science test? The "greats" or a class of 8th grade GT kids?

A degree in math ... I should have guessed.

Actually I am not even very god with math. I got it as almost a consolation prize for spending ten years in engineering and secondary education.


Your comparison will be impractical and is not really a reasonable test. You cannot say Newton knew less than a middle school student based on a tiny fragment of cherry picked claims. If I was to reciprocate in that fashion I would point out that the middle school child did not know even one of the long list of trigonometric derivation identities just from Calculus II alone. It would just be a back and forth. I think it so blatantly obvious the great scientists knew more than an middle school child over all, that it's denial would have to be motivated by emotion or preference and I have nothing to contend with them. If you think that I will have to leave you to continue thinking it as evidence is obviously not that important to you. I am certain you lining up very peculiar facets of knowledge against the far more extensive lists I could state for the great scientists would be an exercise in futility. I think most of them knew all the planets or most of them and the few some might not have will have known will never even come close to the hundreds of things they knew the child does not. So accept or not, but I have no idea how to debate it meaningfully that I can justify that is not already obvious.

 

[1robin]

You’ve made three statements there. The first is sophistically inferred since no objects in the world are observed to begin to exist from nothing; all we are aware of is that matter is continually changing form. The second invites no objection, and the third does not follow from the first.

Actually that can be shown but let me do something far more comprehensive and quick. All events and beings in the universe have an explanation. That is Leibniz version of the argument and I like it better anyway.

Everything that exists may have what is trivially understood as an explanation, that is to say observed to be conjoined or associated in experience with some other thing, but there is no demonstrable cause (The Problem of Causal Inference).

Actually there is but I will stick to "explanation" to simply things. Not even the most rabid atheist would suggests that anything ever comes into being without a cause. I have even heard them bristle and denounce anyone who tried to do to suggest they do. Not only that but every action, event, and fluctuation of any kind has a cause.

I have three option to counter you.

1. Show that no one of any significance denies that things that begin to exist have causes.
2. Show that not only existence but every aspect of the universe has a cause.
3. Clarify the claim in a way to make it more comprehensive and simple.

I have chosen 3.

“Explanation” and “a cause” is the same thing. So explain to me by what self-evident rule or principle must the universe have a cause since “everything that begins to exist” is a false inference as I explained in #1.

Not exactly but if they were then my original claim is even stronger because even you surely will not claim anything happens without an explanation. And if so then you have a cause as well if they are equal. There has never been an event of any kind ever observed that occurred without an explanation plus there is no reason to even theoretically consider that something could. I am on as firm a ground here as science can get. That is what makes events a law. No known exception and no evidence to suggest an exception could exist.

Until you can demonstrate the truth of your first statement in #1 then your assertions here do not follow.

Every observation ever made is proof of my claim. You must show that despite that an alternate claim has better evidence. Good luck.

This irrelevant and of no consequence given my replies above.

Not if your reply's are invalid.

I’m not clear about what you’re saying here. There is no proof of (what I believe you mean) un-bodied minds.

This is the one step that is not a proven result of a premise. I meant that of all the concepts which have any evidence of existing God is by far the best attested and most consistent. Faith has no burden of certainty. Faith only has a burden to lack a defeater but I am going beyond that here and claiming best fit of all evidenced candidates. Of al the things we have any reason to believe exist or may God is by far the best explanation. All my claims do not result in the same level of verification. Some are consistent with all known observations, some are the best explanation we have, and some are simply consistent with observations, I even have a few that only come from a source who's others claims are reliable but I am not making one like that here. IOW if faith sactual burden was a 5 on a 1 - 10 scale I have given 9.9 - 8 level claims.

Did you mean “efficient causation”?

No but arguemnts using that can also be made. I am using sufficient causation. A mouse is not a sufficient explanation given a thermonuclear device. The result has a lot to say about what kind of cause could produce it or explain it.

The overall argument that you’ve given is pure William Lane Craig and presents the same logical difficulties that I’ve discussed with you on previous occasions. And they are:

That argument existed 3000 years before Craig. Craig does not even have his own argument bt uses an Islamic version created 1000 years before he existed. Craig has nothing to do with not that his use of it has any flaw.

1)The Problem of Causal Inference; causation being non-demonstrable. 2)The contradiction that is implied by Necessary Being that is dependent upon a contingent principle. 3)The absurdity where a personal, intelligent, conscious being who by definition is self-sufficient in all things is given an anthropomorphic explanation.

Causation is not only demonstrated but demonstrated in every event where cause can be observed.
There has never been an event where a lack of cause was demonstrated. I do not care what amount of evidence you claim exists 100% of it is exactly consistent with my claim. Now if you hold the ridiculous view that no claim is true unless tested in every form and place then you have just destroyed not only virtually all of science but just about all knowledge in any subject.

I’m very happy to expand on all of these points subject to your response.

This argument has been around since at least the Greeks and everyone has thrown everything they have at it. It has never been defeated and is still as strongly adopted today as ever and still without a single known exception. I am familiar with most of the objections and the faults they have. The only place where even a reasonable content may possibly be made is against the last conclusion that God is that explanation but you will not find it easy there. Remember I did not say that my God is the certain explanation just the best from among explanations which reasons exist to consider.