Who has the burden of proof?

[Thief]

It does with regards to whether cause and effect is universal.


And I've just explained to you that, at the smallest scale, cause and effect doesn't apply. So you are wrong.


It had zero volume. It didn't have a "size".


Prove it.


Prove it.

I have yet to see you demonstrate that a single claim of yours is true. Let me make this clear: Nobody in their right mind is going to believe what you say just because you say it, and just because you lack the understanding or imagination to see how the Universe could occur without a God - and that you feel the compulsion to make up your own explanations in order to fit God into the equation - doesn't make it true either. I want you to demonstrate your claims. Either do it now, or stop wasting our time.

I just love that 'prove it' routine.

No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

This is theology.

You have to think about it.

I won't surrender Cause and effect.
On the large scale it works just fine.

look up!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just love that 'prove it' routine.

No photo, no fingerprint, no equation, and no repeatable experiment.

This is theology.

You have to think about it.

So, in other words, it's baseless speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.

I won't surrender Cause and effect.
On the large scale it works just fine.

But I've already demonstrated that cause and effect ISN'T universal, and does not apply to the singularity. If you refuse to "surrender" cause and effect at this stage, then it is only because you are willfully ignorant.

You are demonstrably wrong about cause and effect. It is not a universal constant and cannot be applied to the singularity.

Those are the facts. If you're not interested in facts, then stop making any kind of assertion and keep your unsupported claims out of any kind of reasonable debate.

 

[Thief]

So, in other words, it's baseless speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.


But I've already demonstrated that cause and effect ISN'T universal, and does not apply to the singularity. If you refuse to "surrender" cause and effect at this stage, then it is only because you are willfully ignorant.

You are demonstrably wrong about cause and effect. It is not a universal constant and cannot be applied to the singularity.

Those are the facts. If you're not interested in facts, then stop making any kind of assertion and keep your unsupported claims out of any kind of reasonable debate.

I wonder what Albert would say about that?

And there's nothing wrong with speculation.
It's better than simpleminded denial.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wonder what Albert would say about that?

Who cares? Albert Einstein was wrong about quantum physics.

And there's nothing wrong with speculation.

Provided speculation isn't presented as facts, like what you keep doing.

It's better than simpleminded denial.

You mean, like your continual denial of the fact that quantum physics invalidates classical cause and effect on the quantum scale?

 

[McBell]

It's better than simpleminded denial.

Your dogmatic denial is most entertaining.

 

[outhouse]

Your dogmatic denial is most entertaining.

His arguments all amount to my imagination is more credible then yours.

 

[Serenity7855]

Not really. In the realm of quantum physics, things can occur randomly and without apparent cause, and recent studies have demonstrated the existence of effects preceding causes:

Not true is it. As soon as the effect precedes the cause it becomes the cause, and then the cause becomes the effect. Plus naturalistic laws do not work at the quantum sub-automic particle level.

First, prove that a cause was necessary, then prove that this cause was necessarily a "someone", then prove that this "someone" was necessarily some form of spirit.

Well, as soon as it becomes a possibility for a cause to bring the universe into being there is no need to prove it. We have Newton's natural laws on motion that work everywhere else in the universe, so we can surmise that it would work simultaneously with the singularity. The Newtonian laws are a candidate for the reason that the universe was created, as well as it possibly being an uncaused universe. That being the case, we must now ask what was behind the cause. Using Occam's razor we can narrow it down to just a few possibilities. One of those possibilities is a superior entity, a God. God is a real candidate for being a necessary enabler of the big bang. If it were cause less then it becomes a supernatural event because in our understanding we have no naturalistic laws that are cause less. God is supernatural, you do the maths.

Have you not noticed how both science and religion are lining up with each other. That God is starting to become more of an interest to scientists. That they compliment each other. Einstein once said that science without religion is lame. He is right.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Not true is it. As soon as the effect precedes the cause it becomes the cause, and then the cause becomes the effect. Plus naturalistic laws do not work at the quantum sub-automic particle level.




Well, as soon as it becomes a possibility for a cause to bring the universe into being there is no need to prove. We have Newton's natural laws on motion that work everywhere else in the universe so we can surmise that it would work simultaneously with the singularity. It is a candidate for the reason that the universe was created, as well as it being an uncaused universe. That being the case we must now ask what was behind the cause. Using Occam's razor we can narrow it down to just a few possibilities. One of those possibilities is a superior entity, a God. God is a candidate for being a necessary enabler of the big bang. If it were cause less the it becomes a supernatural event because in our understanding we have no naturalistic laws that are cause less. God is supernatural, you do the maths.

I do like that you correctly stated naturalistic laws don't apply at the quantum level..
Unfortunately, you immediately forget your own statement.


You can go through your second paragraph, and almost every sentence can be countered with own "natural laws don't apply at quantum levels" to answer your entire second paragraph...

 

[Serenity7855]

I do like that you correctly stated naturalistic laws don't apply at the quantum level..
Unfortunately, you immediately forget your own statement.


You can go through your second paragraph, and almost every sentence can be countered with own "natural laws don't apply at quantum levels" to answer your entire second paragraph...

I know what you are pointing to, however, your statement is a argumentum ad ignorantium. You do not possess the knowledge that allows for Newton's laws to function with the big bang. So, please, state your case and i will attempt to refute it. My statement on a uncaused universe do not encapsulate the need for Newtonian Physics.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I know what you are pointing to, however, your statement is a argumentum ad ignorantium. You do not possess the knowledge that allows for Newton's laws to function with the big bang. So, please, state your case and i will attempt to refute it. My statement on a uncaused universe do not encapsulate the need for Newtonian Physics.

Exactly...
Newtonian physics do not apply.
The singularity is a sub atomic structure.
Cause and effect at quantum levels is not necessary.

I absolutely lack any knowledge whatsoever to state Newtons laws function with the big bang.
I'm saying quite the opposite.

Singularity = sub atomic state = macroscopic physics need not apply

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not true is it. As soon as the effect precedes the cause it becomes the cause, and then the cause becomes the effect.

That's not how it is at all, if the second effect is the cause of the first. If A causes B, then B cannot cause A, so switching the two around doesn't suddenly somehow swap which is the cause and which is the effect. Again, I suggest you read this article:

Switching cause and effect in quantum world? A causes B causes A -- ScienceDaily

Plus naturalistic laws do not work at the quantum sub-automic particle level.

Which is exactly the point I was attempting to prove. Thief is making an argument based on the assumption that cause and effect is universal and can be applied to the singularity. I refute that claim by showing how causality is neither universal nor can accurately be applied to the singularity.

Well, as soon as it becomes a possibility for a cause to bring the universe into being there is no need to prove it. We have Newton's natural laws on motion that work everywhere else in the universe, so we can surmise that it would work simultaneously with the singularity.

We already know that Newton's laws are not Universal - you yourself said that above - and that these laws are constantly broken on the subatomic scale. We also already know that the laws of physics as we understand them become an unknown quantity once we reach the Planck time. We simply cannot assume, on any rational basis, that the singularity was subject to a set of laws that are not Universal nor known to have existed at that particular point in time.

The Newtonian laws are a candidate for the reason that the universe was created, as well as it possibly being an uncaused universe. That being the case, we must now ask what was behind the cause. Using Occam's razor we can narrow it down to just a few possibilities. One of those possibilities is a superior entity, a God. God is a real candidate for being a necessary enabler of the big bang. If it were cause less then it becomes a supernatural event because in our understanding we have no naturalistic laws that are cause less. God is supernatural, you do the maths.

There is no maths required for an unsubstantiated claim. If you have to invent something that is exempt from natural law in order to explain natural law, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. There is no real logic to this argument, just the illusion of it.

Have you not noticed how both science and religion are lining up with each other.

No. Because they aren't.

That God is starting to become more of an interest to scientists. That they compliment each other. Einstein once said that science without religion is lame. He is right.

Again, why should we care what Einstein thinks? He didn't invent science, and he most definitely wouldn't agree with a lot of your assessments.

Can you provide clear examples where science and the hypothesis of a God compliment each other?

 

[Sapiens]

Einstein once said that science without religion is lame. He is right.

Let's stop the quote mining shenanigans. Here's the quote, in context, the complete essay is accessible:

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.


Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.


Albert Einstein, New York Times Magazine, 9 Nov 1930 pp 1-4.

 

[Serenity7855]

Exactly...
Newtonian physics do not apply.

Unfortunately, Grünbaum's objection is pretty clearly a pseudo-dilemma. For he fails to consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally1) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].2 Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball's resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion.3 Indeed, some philosophers argue that all efficient causation is simultaneous, for if the causal conditions sufficient for some event E were present prior to the time t of E's occurrence, then E would happen prior to t; similarly if the causal conditions for E were to vanish at t after having existed at tn < t, then E would not occur at t. In any case, there seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the origination of the universe. We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang. In such a case, the cause may be said to exist spacelessly and timelessly sans the universe, but temporally subsequent to the moment of creation

Read more: Creation and Big Bang Cosmology | Reasonable Faith

The singularity is a sub atomic structure.

Well, that is an absurd statement to make. You do not know that. Indeed, as far as science can comprehend the singularity is nothing for it has no space, mass, time or energy so it is nothing, however, nothing could very well be something, we just do not know. That it is the smallest divisible regression does not follow that it is a sub-automic particle.

Cause and effect at quantum levels is not necessary.

That is not true. How can you say it is not necessary if it does not even function at a quantum sub-automic level. It just does not happen, therefore, it is irrelevant.

I absolutely lack any knowledge whatsoever to state Newtons laws function with the big bang.
I'm saying quite the opposite.

Singularity = sub atomic state = macroscopic physics need not apply

Newton's law cannot operate before t=0, however, they can at, and after t=0

 

[Serenity7855]

That's not how it is at all, if the second effect is the cause of the first. If A causes B, then B cannot cause A, so switching the two around doesn't suddenly somehow swap which is the cause and which is the effect. Again, I suggest you read this article:

Switching cause and effect in quantum world? A causes B causes A -- ScienceDaily

Quite so, however, you are saying that the effect happens before the cause, or, B before A, therefore, B must have initiated A which means that B caused A to happen. A is therefore the effect of B.

Which is exactly the point I was attempting to prove. Thief is making an argument based on the assumption that cause and effect is universal and can be applied to the singularity. I refute that claim by showing how causality is neither universal nor can accurately be applied to the singularity.

Unfortunately, Grünbaum's objection is pretty clearly a pseudo-dilemma. For he fails to consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally1) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].2 Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball's resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion.3 Indeed, some philosophers argue that all efficient causation is simultaneous, for if the causal conditions sufficient for some event E were present prior to the time t of E's occurrence, then E would happen prior to t; similarly if the causal conditions for E were to vanish at t after having existed at tn < t, then E would not occur at t. In any case, there seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the origination of the universe. We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang. In such a case, the cause may be said to exist spacelessly and timelessly sans the universe, but temporally subsequent to the moment of creation

Read more: Creation and Big Bang Cosmology | Reasonable Faith

We already know that Newton's laws are not Universal - you yourself said that above - and that these laws are constantly broken on the subatomic scale. We also already know that the laws of physics as we understand them become an unknown quantity once we reach the Planck time. We simply cannot assume, on any rational basis, that the singularity was subject to a set of laws that are not Universal nor known to have existed at that particular point in time.

No laws are broken on the sub atomic level. They just do not exist or apply to them.

I agree with the rest, however, at t=0 they do apply. If the cause and effect simultaneously occurred at t=0 then Newton's law apply. It is only before t=0 that they cannot apply.

There is no maths required for an unsubstantiated claim. If you have to invent something that is exempt from natural law in order to explain natural law, you are committing a special pleading fallacy. There is no real logic to this argument, just the illusion of it.

The whole hypothesis of the big bang was once an unsubstantiated claim. That is how science works. There is no reason not to treat a supernatural event with a supernatural conclusion.

No. Because they aren't.

I watch a good many scientific documentaries and lectures and there is a definite upward trend in the intermingling of science and religion.

Again, why should we care what Einstein thinks? He didn't invent science, and he most definitely wouldn't agree with a lot of your assessments.

Who said it is irrelevant. What is important is what is being said. Science and religion will eventually merge

Can you provide clear examples where science and the hypothesis of a God compliment each other?

Yes, of course.

Is There A Creator?

It's perhaps the biggest, most controversial mystery in the cosmos. Did our Universe just come into being by random chance, or was it created by a God who nurtures and sustains all life?

The latest science is showing that the four forces governing our universe are phenomenally finely tuned. So finely that it had led many to the conclusion that someone, or something, must have calibrated them; a belief further backed up by evidence that everything in our universe may emanate from one extraordinarily elegant and beautiful design known as the E8 Lie Group.

While skeptics hold that these findings are neither conclusive nor evidence of a divine creator, some cutting edge physicists are already positing who this God is: an alien gamester who's created our world as the ultimate SIM game for his own amusement. It's an answer as compelling as it is disconcerting.

Through The Wormhole: Is There A Creator? - Watch Free Documentary Online

 

[Thief]

So, in other words, it's baseless speculation. Thanks for finally admitting it.


But I've already demonstrated that cause and effect ISN'T universal, and does not apply to the singularity. If you refuse to "surrender" cause and effect at this stage, then it is only because you are willfully ignorant.

You are demonstrably wrong about cause and effect. It is not a universal constant and cannot be applied to the singularity.

Those are the facts. If you're not interested in facts, then stop making any kind of assertion and keep your unsupported claims out of any kind of reasonable debate.

Let's see.....baseless?....as in non ONE was first?
Baseless...as in the singularity is 'self' starting?

Baseless? as in denial for the sake of denial?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Quite so, however, you are saying that the effect happens before the cause, or, B before A, therefore, B must have initiated A which means that B caused A to happen. A is therefore the effect of B.

Which still defies the classical law of cause and effect, which states that an effect can only occur AFTER the cause. If a cause comes after the effect, it's not a classical cause and effect relationship.

Unfortunately, Grünbaum's objection is pretty clearly a pseudo-dilemma. For he fails to consider the obvious alternative that the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally1) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].2 Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation; to borrow an example from Kant, a heavy ball's resting on a cushion being the cause of a depression in that cushion.3 Indeed, some philosophers argue that all efficient causation is simultaneous, for if the causal conditions sufficient for some event E were present prior to the time t of E's occurrence, then E would happen prior to t; similarly if the causal conditions for E were to vanish at t after having existed at tn < t, then E would not occur at t. In any case, there seems to be no conceptual difficulty in saying that the cause of the origin of the universe acted simultaneously (or coincidentally) with the origination of the universe. We should therefore say that the cause of the origin of the universe is causally prior to the Big Bang, though not temporally prior to the Big Bang. In such a case, the cause may be said to exist spacelessly and timelessly sans the universe, but temporally subsequent to the moment of creation

Read more: Creation and Big Bang Cosmology | Reasonable Faith

That sure looks like a lot of meaningless word salad to me. Care to put it in your own words, because all I see is "causes and effects can happen simultaneously", which doesn't really bode well for the proposition that the cause must have preceded the effect in big bang cosmology. If a cause and effect can occur simultaneously, you no longer need a pre-existing force to explain the big bang. This argument just seems to fall over itself.

No laws are broken on the sub atomic level. They just do not exist or apply to them.

You do realize that that's the same thing, right? These laws were considered Universal, but then we discovered that they did not apply at a certain level.

I agree with the rest, however, at t=0 they do apply. If the cause and effect simultaneously occurred at t=0 then Newton's law apply. It is only before t=0 that they cannot apply.

Thus, you cannot use Newton's laws as a successful argument for the origin of the universe.

The whole hypothesis of the big bang was once an unsubstantiated claim. That is how science works. There is no reason not to treat a supernatural event with a supernatural conclusion.

It was, but then we found evidence for it.

Also, your assertion that this is a "supernatural event" is baseless. Please tell me how you reached the conclusion that the big bang, or any event, can be considered quantifiably supernatural.

I watch a good many scientific documentaries and lectures and there is a definite upward trend in the intermingling of science and religion.

I've asked for examples. Can you provide any?

Who said it is irrelevant.

I agree. So why are you name-dropping Einstein?

What is important is what is being said. Science and religion will eventually merge

Baseless claim. All of the current evidence shows that as science education increases, and our knowledge of the Universe increases, religion and belief in God decreases.

Scientists and Belief | Pew Research Center&#039;s Religion & Public Life Project
The Effect of Education on Religion: Evidence from Compulsory Schooling Laws

Yes, of course.

Can you provide a specific summary of the facts, rather than a 44 minute documentary?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's see.....baseless?....as in non ONE was first?

Didn't make that claim.

Baseless...as in the singularity is 'self' starting?

Didn't make that claim either.

Baseless? as in denial for the sake of denial?

I'm not denying anything. For reference, here's what denial looks like:

You are aware?...quantum mechanics doesn't have all of the answers.

I wonder what Albert would say about that?

I won't surrender Cause and effect.
On the large scale it works just fine.

There, see the difference? Denial is when you dismiss an opposing view without any good reason. What I have done is refute your claims with reference to reliable science and established facts.

You are clearly the one in denial.

 

[Desert Snake]

Science always has the burden of proof, not religion(s).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science always has the burden of proof, not religion(s).

All claims have a burden of proof, be they scientific, religious or any other kind of claim.

 

[raw_thought]

First see posts 402 and 405.
"Agnostic theist" is not the same as "theist".If it were there would be no reason to add "agnostic" to "theist".
Suppose one is in a debate with a theist and one proves that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about the existence of God. You have proven agnosticism, not atheism. It would be dishonest for a theist to claim that you have not proven theism false because theists are agnostic ( have doubts).
As for the idea that atheism includes agnosticism because it is the lack of belief, that shows a lack of knowledge about logic. A negative proposition is still a proposition. "-A" is still a proposition.The proposition ( belief) that there is no God is still a proposition. Or are my opponents claiming that atheism is not the belief that there is no God?!!
Having clear definitions facilitates communication. To say that theists are agnostics and that atheists are agnostics makes those terms interchangeable. I prefer the precision of the dictionary.
PS; YIKES, YEP grammar mistake!! At post 403 I meant to say " That is not correct", not " that is not incorrect".:sorry1: