What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fine. Lets say its an excuse. But that's not a good falsification attempt just to say "its an excuse".

So tell me. What is your excuse?

He doesn't need one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The singularity existed before time, before natural laws and before then universe, then it gave birth to all three.

There is no "before" t = 0

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Edit
Go pick up a piece of rock in your left hand and then go pick up a piece of south in your right hand. Compare them and see what you come up with.

You are still using hidden assumptions. So what are those?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is no "before" t = 0

No, that is not known, because t = 0 is an idea, not a fact.

 

[We Never Know]

You are still using hidden assumptions. So what are those?

No hidden assumptions. Fact is you can pick up a piece of rock, weigh a piece of rock, feel a piece of rock, throw a piece of rock, etc. you cannot do the same things with a piece of "south"

 

[Polymath257]

They can be shown 3 ways. Direct observation, indirect observation or inferred presence and predictions from theory or conjecture.

Do the same for a piece of south.

The south pole is the physical location where the rotation appears clockwise from above.

South is the direction towards the south pole.

You don't need a 'piece for something to be 'physical'. Time is a physical thing. So is light.

In your definition, south is inferred from theory.

 

[We Never Know]

There is no "before" t = 0

A singularity existed before time, natural laws and the universe .. T or F?

If true it was before. If false then what did the universe come from?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No hidden assumptions. Fact is you can pick up a piece of rock, weigh a piece of rock, feel a piece of rock, throw a piece of rock, etc. you cannot do the same things with a piece of "south"

Yeah, I do it differently than you.

 

[Polymath257]

No hidden assumptions. Fact is you can pick up a piece of rock, weigh a piece of rock, feel a piece of rock, throw a piece of rock, etc. you cannot do the same things with a piece of "south"

Nor can you do any of those with a neutrino. Nor can you do any of those with a Higg's particle. And while you can weigh air, you would probably have trouble picking up a piece of air.

 

[Polymath257]

A singularity existed before time, natural laws and the universe .. T or F?

False.

If true it was before. If false then what did the universe come from?

That gets to the point: the universe is not caused. It didn't 'come from' at all.

The Earth does not 'come from' the south pole. The south pole is part of the geometry of the Earth.

In modern cosmology, space *and* time are considered as geometric aspects of the universe. The universe is all matter and energy throughout both space and time.

So it doesn't 'come from': it just is.

 

[We Never Know]

The south pole is the physical location where the rotation appears clockwise from above.

South is the direction towards the south pole.

You don't need a 'piece for something to be 'physical'. Time is a physical thing. So is light.

In your definition, south is inferred from theory.

South is a construct of man. What we call South could have been just as easily called North, East or West.

 

[We Never Know]

False.



That gets to the point: the universe is not caused. It didn't 'come from' at all.

How did the universe become a physical growing space?

 

[Polymath257]

How did the universe become a physical growing space?

Space and time are part of the universe. The universe is larger at later times, just like the latitude lines are larger as you move away from the south pole (until you get to the equator, at least).

There is no 'how'. Once again, causality only applies within the universe. Not to the universe itself.

 

[Polymath257]

South is a construct of man. What we call South could have been just as easily called North, East or West.

Sure. And what we call an electron could also have been called a quark. The name isn't relevant. The physical reality is. And there *is* a physical aspect of 'south' on any rotating planet.

You can determine whether you are north or south of the equator by considering the coriolis force. that is a physical measurement that can be done to determine north vs south. East and west are different because they point to the direction of rotation (or away from it). Again, both are precisely defined for any rotating object.

 

[We Never Know]

Nor can you do any of those with a neutrino. Nor can you do any of those with a Higg's particle. And while you can weigh air, you would probably have trouble picking up a piece of air.

As I already stated. Those can be shown three ways. Direct observation, indirect observation and predictions from theory or conjecture.

The concept of south only exists in our minds.

 

[exchemist]

The physicist should perhaps stay in his lane. The "everything has a cause" is not a premise of the argument and is often misunderstood. Dr. Feser explains:

"The stock caricature in question is, of course, the “Everything has a cause, so the universe has a cause” argument. As I’ve pointed out many times (e.g. here and here), no major proponent of the idea of a First Cause ever actually defended this stupid argument. Indeed, all the major proponents of arguments for a First Cause would reject the claim that “everything has a cause,” and on entirely principled rather than ad hoc grounds. Hence the stock retort to this caricature has no force whatsoever against their actual arguments. That stock retort is of course to ask “If everything has a cause, then what caused God?” and then to suggest that if God need not have a cause, then neither need the universe have a cause. Maybe, those who attack this caricature suggest, it is the universe itself (or the event that gave rise to it) that is the first or uncaused cause."

Edward Feser: Clarke on the stock caricature of First Cause arguments

This is interesting, certainly, but what, then is the argument?

 

[Polymath257]

As I already stated. Those can be shown three ways. Direct observation, indirect observation and predictions from theory or conjecture.

The concept of south only exists in our minds.

And that is wrong. There is a physical difference between the direction of north and the direction of south. You can determine which direction is which by physical measurements on a rotating body like the Earth. In the same way, north, south, east, and west make sense on Jupiter, Venus, or Pluto.

 

[We Never Know]

Space and time are part of the universe. The universe is larger at later times, just like the latitude lines are larger as you move away from the south pole (until you get to the equator, at least).

There is no 'how'. Once again, causality only applies within the universe. Not to the universe itself.

Ok. So you claim there was no singularity before time, physical laws, and the universe.
Then where did they all come from?
(If its not worded as you like, humor me and side step the semantics instead of side stepping an answer)

 

[We Never Know]

And that is wrong. There is a physical difference between the direction of north and the direction of south. You can determine which direction is which by physical measurements on a rotating body like the Earth. In the same way, north, south, east, and west make sense on Jupiter, Venus, or Pluto.

If you think "south" is a physical thing, thats your opinion. Its a man constructed direction.
South describes a direction, you cannot show me a piece of south.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. So you claim there was no singularity before time, physical laws, and the universe.
Then where did they all come from?
(If its not worded as you like, humor me and side step the semantics instead of side stepping an answer)

The question makes an assumption of causality that does not apply.

The universe, throughout space and time, simply exists. It doesn't 'come from' and there is no 'how'.

The reason neither make sense is that 'come from' and 'how' are questions that only make sense *inside* of the universe.