Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not sure what this has to do with me saying skepticism and atheism is an intellectual process. Leov gave the impression that he was an atheist because people told him what atheism is rather than him understanding these epistemological positions for himself. Being an atheist, in this day and age, is being confronted by people claiming numerous religions and gods. Therefore, it is necessarily an intellectual process when someone does disbelieved with logical argument(or understanding lack thereof) and the consideration of available evidence. I would even say that some forms of theism are an intellectual process, however, from my experience many theists lack the ability to even use hypotheticals outside their worldview.

You seem to be taking what I’m saying far more philosophically than practically. I’d say that anyone theist/atheist, or any ideology, that has not contemplated on some level has not gone through an intellectual process. Leov seemed to show a very rudimentary and false idea of what atheism is. Similarly, his comment passed over, showing his view of theism, which was equally lacking any skepticism and subsequent intellectual process.

Atheism and skepticism is a personal process in an individual human and it doesn't have to that intellectual. I have done skepticism for over 20 years now, I am not that intellectual. There are texts on science and philosophy I can't understand. Skepticism to me, is about it works because it fits that I accept relativism. I am a product of western culture and I have found that skepticism about knowledge and morality/ethics fit, how I understand being confronted by people claiming numerous religions and gods and not just that. So where you favor using logic and evidence and understand skepticism being about the correct usage of logic and evidence, I use skepticism to confirm that there is no overall logic and evidence to reality, when it comes to the human experience and existence.
That is my point.

 

[charlie sc]

Atheism and skepticism is a personal process in an individual human and it doesn't have to that intellectual. I have done skepticism for over 20 years now, I am not that intellectual. There are texts on science and philosophy I can't understand. Skepticism to me, is about it works because it fits that I accept relativism. I am a product of western culture and I have found that skepticism about knowledge and morality/ethics fit, how I understand being confronted by people claiming numerous religions and gods and not just that. So where you favor using logic and evidence and understand skepticism being about the correct usage of logic and evidence, I use skepticism to confirm that there is no overall logic and evidence to reality, when it comes to the human experience and existence.
That is my point.

Fair enough and I don’t necessarily disagree. Though I think we can agree on two points. First, in discourse, it is at least useful to reach similar definitions or understand the disparity in definitions and the concepts/usages behind each word. Second, contemplating one’s own belief is, on some level, an intellectual process.

What you say?

 

[gnostic]

No, always.
Reality doesn't have to conform to your wants and likes.

Reality is the way it is, no matter if you "like" it or not.

Yes.

The “reality” of nature go beyond human aesthetics (hence like and dislike).

Truth is that what corresponds to reality.
Science is a worthy undertaking, as it is demonstrably a good method to learn about reality.

I only partially agree with your first sentence that I’ve highlighted above.

The term “truth” is a tricky word to use with several meanings, so it is ambiguous at best, so often I don’t use this term “truth” when I talking about natural science; if I can avoid it I would.

In essence, “truth” is something that is “true”.

But that “something” being the truth, can be objectively true or subjectively true, hence the ambiguity of the term “truth”. And the subjective truth is based on someone human perspective.

Sometimes truth can be both objective and subjective at the same times, but sometimes they are not the same or not in agreement.

For instance, in a court trial like murder case, the testimonies suspect and the eyewitnesses needs to present the truth as they see it, which don’t necessarily have to agree with the evidences found on the scene, eg murder weapon, fingerprints, DNA, a recording device (eg one that record video or audio, or both), etc.

A witness at the scene can be murder suspect. For instance, if there are 4 people, 3 of them in the building where it took place - the victim, murderer and eyewitness. A 2nd eyewitness only heard some shouting but only see someone fleeing from the scene through one of the doors but didn’t see the actual stabbing that took place. What if that someone fleeing was the eyewitness that the 2nd eyewitness saw, not the murderer. In this case, the 1st witness can become suspect, unless the police forensics can find the murderer’s fingerprints or dna on the victim or on the murder weapon, or video footage of what happened.

The 2nd eyewitness can only testify one person fleeing the scene, but whether it was the 1st witness or the murderer, depends on who he saw leaving the building through that door. And if no dna or other evidences can be found, then the 1st witness become the prime suspect.

The testimonies are subjective, while the evidences are objective.

That’s one of the reasons why I tried to avoid using the word truth.

I think a better word to use than truth is “fact”.

Fact is based on the evidences of reality, that don’t have to conform with ones’ likes or beliefs, or don’t have to conform with ones’ testimonies who may be telling truth or lies.

With science I would preferred to have evidences and facts over some scientists’ theoretical models based on some equations or formulas. A theoretical scientist’s logics and maths are not inerrant.

For instance, Peter Higgs and Stephen Hawking were both theoretical physicists, and Hawking have disagreed with Higgs Boson, a elementary particle that was first predicted in 1964 by Higgs. Because of Hawking’s celebrity’s status, most people would agree with Hawking over Higgs. Hawking bashed Higgs’ model when he criticised Higgs’ work (the Higgs Mechanics) in 2002 and 2008.

But as it turn out the theoretical particle was discovered in 2012 and confirmed in 2013, during LHC experiments, so the Higgs Boson is no longer theoretical.

I admired Hawking’s genius, but clearly he was wrong. Much of Hawking’s works remained theoretical, so unless there are actual evidences other than his maths and his celebrity, I wouldn’t accept any of his models being true.

 

[We Never Know]

Nobody said anything about proving untestable prediction.
Nobody even claimed that the prediction of the multiverse is testable.

The thing is, as a scientific model, it makes many predictions. The universe is just one of them. Other predictions can be tested.

As Krauss said: if you have a model that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable and 1 untestable, and if you test those 99 and they all come back succesfull, then that says something about the 1 untestable one.

Eventhough it is untestable, it is not at all on par with religious claims of the supernatural.

In the end, every succesfull test, strengthens a scientific model. And the thing about such models is such that if the model is accurate, then the predictions are true.

You don't get it. Anything outside the natural existing universe can't even be shown to exist or not exist even if you have 1 million theory's and hypotheses.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Fair enough and I don’t necessarily disagree. Though I think we can agree on two points. First, in discourse, it is at least useful to reach similar definitions or understand the disparity in definitions and the concepts/usages behind each word. Second, contemplating one’s own belief is, on some level, an intellectual process.

What you say?

We agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't get it. Anything outside the natural existing universe can't even be shown to exist or not exist even if you have 1 million theory's and hypotheses.

In philosophy it is this claim:
No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

Some of those on the side of atheism seem unaware, when they stop doing methodological naturalism and start doing philosophy. Any claim of what is really real, is philosophy. Indeed the word real has no objective referent, it is a subjective idea in the brains of some people. In the natural universe real is no different than god. It is a first person idea. If there were no humans, there would be no real. BTW the same is the case for the word existence. It is ontology and thus philosophy and existence is only real if you believe in it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't get it. Anything outside the natural existing universe can't even be shown to exist or not exist even if you have 1 million theory's and hypotheses.

You succesfully repeated what I said in the beginning of the post.

Unsurprisingly, you ignored the rest of the post.

It's clear that you don't understand, and/or aren't interested in understanding, the difference between stand alone metaphysical claims on the one hand, and scientific models on the other which predicts a metaphysical thing, among other predictions which ARE NOT metaphysical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In philosophy it is this claim:
No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

Some of those on the side of atheism seem unaware, when they stop doing methodological naturalism and start doing philosophy. Any claim of what is really real, is philosophy. Indeed the word real has no objective referent, it is a subjective idea in the brains of some people. In the natural universe real is no different than god. It is a first person idea. If there were no humans, there would be no real. BTW the same is the case for the word existence. It is ontology and thus philosophy and existence is only real if you believe in it.

None of this is relevant to where the idea of the multiverse comes from, and how that compares to where ideas of supernatural shenannigans come from.

While the multiverse is metaphysical and untestable, it's not some crazy claim that came to someone in a "vision" or "dream" or "revelation" or what-not. Instead, it is an scientific prediction naturally flowing from a scientific model

Yes, it's an untestable prediction.
It's a prediction nonetheless.

Gods or other supernatural things, aren't scientific predictions naturally flowing from a scientific model.
Instead, they are stand alone bare claims without a single shred of objective evidence.


You know what this means?
It means that the multiverse, while untestable, is actually falsifiable. Show the scientific model wrong, and that will render the prediction invalid.

You can't do anything comparable with supernatural claims.
There's no reason to suggest them and there's no way to falsify them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think a better word to use than truth is “fact”.

"fact is that which corresponds to reality".


That is the best we can do, in terms of knowing if something is true/accurate/factual: to test it against observable reality. We have no other way to distinguish truth from fiction.

Fact is based on the evidences of reality, that don’t have to conform with ones’ likes or beliefs, or don’t have to conform with ones’ testimonies who may be telling truth or lies.

Exactly. This means that the only way we have to validate "truth", is by empiricism. Empiricism is what allows us to test ideas against observable reality.

With science I would preferred to have evidences and facts over some scientists’ theoretical models based on some equations or formulas. A theoretical scientist’s logics and maths are not inerrant.

Theoretical models (= hypothesis, theories) ARE what science is all about.
The models explain the facts. The facts support the models.

Theory = explanation.

For instance, Peter Higgs and Stephen Hawking were both theoretical physicists, and Hawking have disagreed with Higgs Boson, a elementary particle that was first predicted in 1964 by Higgs. Because of Hawking’s celebrity’s status, most people would agree with Hawking over Higgs. Hawking bashed Higgs’ model when he criticised Higgs’ work (the Higgs Mechanics) in 2002 and 2008.

But as it turn out the theoretical particle was discovered in 2012 and confirmed in 2013, during LHC experiments, so the Higgs Boson is no longer theoretical.

Yep. So it seems as if Hawking's "celebrity status" and his opinion didn't really matter, right?
It didn't stop people from looking, nore did it stop people from discovering it.

Einstein wasn't any different. He actually believed his theories had to be wrong, because he thought things like black holes were absurd.

Hawking was not the first, and I'll guarantee you not the last, to be wrong about something.

I admired Hawking’s genius, but clearly he was wrong

Yep. So what? Being wrong is part of the process.

Much of Hawking’s works remained theoretical, so unless there are actual evidences other than his maths and his celebrity, I wouldn’t accept any of his models being true.

Science is not a religion. Nobody expects anyone to accept hypothesis at the frontier of science to being "true", simply because a genius came up with it.

But those hypothesis need to be explored as best as possible. And yes, it's hard. As per your example, it took some 60 years to find that Higgs particle. Not becaue nobody was looking for it during that time. Rather because it's really hard to find.

For starters, they required a machine like the LHC to do it.


In short: not really sure what you are complaining about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

None of this is relevant to where the idea of the multiverse comes from, and how that compares to where ideas of supernatural shenannigans come from.

While the multiverse is metaphysical and untestable, it's not some crazy claim that came to someone in a "vision" or "dream" or "revelation" or what-not. Instead, it is an scientific prediction naturally flowing from a scientific model

Yes, it's an untestable prediction.
It's a prediction nonetheless.

Gods or other supernatural things, aren't scientific predictions naturally flowing from a scientific model.
Instead, they are stand alone bare claims without a single shred of objective evidence.


You know what this means?
It means that the multiverse, while untestable, is actually falsifiable. Show the scientific model wrong, and that will render the prediction invalid.

You can't do anything comparable with supernatural claims.
There's no reason to suggest them and there's no way to falsify them.

Here is the problem of a Boltzmann Brain.
Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real
Boltzmann Brains: Is Our World a Hallucination Caused by Thermodynamics?
Richard Feynman on Boltzmann Brains - Cosmic Variance : Cosmic Variance
Universes that spawn 'cosmic brains' should go on the scrapheap

TRUST your senses. Any theory that lets bizarre brains randomly pop into existence can’t be a valid description of the universe.

That might seem obvious, but such conscious observers, called Boltzmann brains, are inevitable in certain versions of cosmology. New work that claims to banish such theories not only suggests your brain isn’t such an oddity, but tells us which frameworks for the cosmos are the most sound.

The problem is that it is a circular argument: I TRUST my senses. The results of my senses, tell me that I can trust my senses.
You are doing philosophy as its core. You claim you know how ever you know, in that you can trust your senses, because that is what your senses tell you. That is it.
That your model of reality is true, is so, because it is true to you. It makes sense to you, therefore it is true.

I am skeptic and I don't believe in that kind of knowledge, because you use it to judge other humans. You claim Objective Knowledge for what reality really is and nobody has that.
I am not really an atheist nor standard religious. I am a hardcore skeptic and I fight you, because you judge on people based on your subjective TRUST in your senses. That is it.
You then use all these subjective words like reason, logic, rationality and so on. The problem is that if there were no humans, those words would be about nothing. You use them in your individual version to make sense of reality and then claim that all other versions are bad and what not. That is it. If I am not like you, I don't really have a life and I will die the next moment, because I jump out of a window.

You subjectively make sense of the rest of the universe and I do it differently in some sense. That is the fact and you don't like that. That is your problem. I accept that you can do it differently. I accept that you believe I can't really do it, because I am irrational and what not. But that is your personal interpretation of how I ought to be. How I ought to be according to you, is morality and ethics. And not matter how much it doesn't make sense to you, how I am, it makes sense to me, how both you and I are. I accept that you make sense of reality is some senses differently than me, and I accept that you don't accept the difference.
If there are people, who in some sense can live without evidence, then you only know this because you have evidence for it and then it is a natural fact, that there are people, who in some sense can live without evidence. You don't like that and you don't want that to be the case. That is your problem. Mine is how I answer you.

I answer you by pointing out that the majority of all humans are irrational, yet still live, have offspring if lucky and some still die of old age having had a good enough life, yet they are irrational. If the human race is so truly irrational as you claim, we wouldn't be here. The first humans would all have jump off cliffs and died. That is the reductio ad absurdum to your reasoning.

You are a product of nature and nurture and thus you have a personal view of truth, reason, logic and what not. But evolution allows for variance in how we live our lives. Subjectivism is the result of natural evolutionary variances in humans and how our genes result in relativism.
I am religious, because that is how the natural world works. That is what science tells us. You don't like that and that is how the natural world works too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is the problem of a Boltzmann Brain.
Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real
Boltzmann Brains: Is Our World a Hallucination Caused by Thermodynamics?
Richard Feynman on Boltzmann Brains - Cosmic Variance : Cosmic Variance
Universes that spawn 'cosmic brains' should go on the scrapheap


The problem is that it is a circular argument: I TRUST my senses. The results of my senses, tell me that I can trust my senses.
You are doing philosophy as its core. You claim you know how ever you know, in that you can trust your senses, because that is what your senses tell you. That is it.
That your model of reality is true, is so, because it is true to you. It makes sense to you, therefore it is true.

I am skeptic and I don't believe in that kind of knowledge, because you use it to judge other humans. You claim Objective Knowledge for what reality really is and nobody has that.
I am not really an atheist nor standard religious. I am a hardcore skeptic and I fight you, because you judge on people based on your subjective TRUST in your senses. That is it.
You then use all these subjective words like reason, logic, rationality and so on. The problem is that if there were no humans, those words would be about nothing. You use them in your individual version to make sense of reality and then claim that all other versions are bad and what not. That is it. If I am not like you, I don't really have a life and I will die the next moment, because I jump out of a window.

You subjectively make sense of the rest of the universe and I do it differently in some sense. That is the fact and you don't like that. That is your problem. I accept that you can do it differently. I accept that you believe I can't really do it, because I am irrational and what not. But that is your personal interpretation of how I ought to be. How I ought to be according to you, is morality and ethics. And not matter how much it doesn't make sense to you, how I am, it makes sense to me, how both you and I are. I accept that you make sense of reality is some senses differently than me, and I accept that you don't accept the difference.
If there are people, who in some sense can live without evidence, then you only know this because you have evidence for it and then it is a natural fact, that there are people, who in some sense can live without evidence. You don't like that and you don't want that to be the case. That is your problem. Mine is how I answer you.

I answer you by pointing out that the majority of all humans are irrational, yet still live, have offspring if lucky and some still die of old age having had a good enough life, yet they are irrational. If the human race is so truly irrational as you claim, we wouldn't be here. The first humans would all have jump off cliffs and died. That is the reductio ad absurdum to your reasoning.

You are a product of nature and nurture and thus you have a personal view of truth, reason, logic and what not. But evolution allows for variance in how we live our lives. Subjectivism is the result of natural evolutionary variances in humans and how our genes result in relativism.
I am religious, because that is how the natural world works. That is what science tells us. You don't like that and that is how the natural world works too.

I think you are so burried in philosophical mumbo jumbo that you have become unable to think in practical terms about the reality that we all live in every day and which is consistent enough to learn about it.

 

[Unguru]

I think you are so burried in philosophical mumbo jumbo that you have become unable to think in practical terms about the reality that we all live in every day and which is consistent enough to learn about it.

You've literally said nothing of use in this thread. All you have done here is repeatedly say that you're an atheist. I get that you are an atheist, that's great. Now what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think you are so burried in philosophical mumbo jumbo that you have become unable to think in practical terms about the reality that we all live in every day and which is consistent enough to learn about it.

Yeah, at least you are honest and start with "I think..." Well, tough cookie, because you use philosophy and empiricism is also philosophical mumbo jumbo and you have become unable to accept the relativism of the reality that we all live in every day.

It works both ways, I use philosophy and so do you.
Now RL calls, but I will give you references to different versions of empiricism later. Philosophy is not as simple as you want to make it out to be.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You've literally said nothing of use in this thread.

The whole thread is useless as the very title itself is a question loaded with a strawman.

All you have done here is repeatedly say that you're an atheist. I get that you are an atheist, that's great. Now what?

These last couple pages, I've attempted to explain how the idea of a multiverse, while about "outside" the universe and untestable, is not at all the same class of idea as supernatural shenannigans - since it came up earlier in the thread. I didn't even address atheism, let alone my atheism and reasons to not be a theist.

But it seems like it's not sinking in.

You apparantly even missed the whole topic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, at least you are honest and start with "I think..." Well, tough cookie, because you use philosophy and empiricism is also philosophical mumbo jumbo and you have become unable to accept the relativism of the reality that we all live in every day.

It works both ways, I use philosophy and so do you.
Now RL calls, but I will give you references to different versions of empiricism later. Philosophy is not as simple as you want to make it out to be.

I'm just discussion a metaphysical idea wich is the result of a scientific prediction by a scientific model and how that is different from a metaphysical idea wich is the result of a standalone bare claim that is not the result of rational framework of inquiry.

I just think it's funny that you then feel the need to drive down pure philosophy lane and literally question knowledge itself, completely ignoring every and all practical merrits, seemingly just to avoid acknowledging the point being made.

The point being made was a very simple one.
The way you are responding to it, is completely absurd and, to me at least, seems designed specifically to act as a conversation stopper.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The whole thread is useless as the very title itself is a question loaded with a strawman.


These last couple pages, I've attempted to explain how the idea of a multiverse, while about "outside" the universe and untestable, is not at all the same class of idea as supernatural shenannigans - since it came up earlier in the thread.

But it seems like it's not sinking in.

You apparantly even missed the whole topic.

There are no privileged positions in metaphysics.

Your answer is nothing but: I think... But how you think, doesn't decide that. Neither for any other human. I know that. You don't because you are unable to be skeptical about your own position. You take your own thinking for granted, but how you think, doesn't not cause metaphysics. What reality really is, is in practice beyond the control of all humans. Nobody in the strong sense control reality, everybody are dependent on reality as it appears, but how it is objective as independent of the mind is unknown. That is Kant and "das Ding an sich".
You don't in practice do metaphysics, you do phenomenology. That is what methodological naturalism is in practice. How reality is to humans and how we live in it and make sense of it.

So read:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That is written by actual scientists.

You are not doing science, you are doing philosophy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no privileged positions in metaphysics.

Your answer is nothing but: I think... But how you think, doesn't decide that. Neither for any other human. I know that. You don't because you are unable to be skeptical about your own position. You take your own thinking for granted, but how you think, doesn't not cause metaphysics. What reality really is, is in practice beyond the control of all humans. Nobody in the strong sense control reality, everybody are dependent on reality as it appears, but how it is objective as independent of the mind is unknown. That is Kant and "das Ding an sich".
You don't in practice do metaphysics, you do phenomenology. That is what methodological naturalism is in practice. How reality is to humans and how we live in it and make sense of it.

So read:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That is written by actual scientists.

You are not doing science, you are doing philosophy.

As said before, you are so deeply burried in your philosophers, you completely lost track of the very simple point being made.

That point being the difference between:
- an idea, which happens to be metaphysical, which is a prediction by a scientific model
and
- a standalone metaphysical claim that is not rooted in any rational framework (like a scientific model) .


The prediction of a multiverse is actually the same as the prediction of black holes.
Einstein even thought his theory must have been incorrect, since he thought the idea of a black hole was absurd! So black holes weren't a claim an sich. They were a prediction of a scientific model. The validness of this prediction, is directly related to the accuracy of the model.

This is why Einstein thought his model must have been wrong, because he didn't believe black holes exist or could exist.

This was my one and only point in this entire subject: the multiverse and supernatural things, while both directly untestable and "outside" of the universe, are not the same class of ideas.

One is a scientific prediction of scientific theory.
The other is a bare claim with nothing valid to back it up.

In case of the multiverse, if you wish to defend it, you have the scientific model that predicts it to back it up with.

Just like you would have had Einstein's theories to back up the prediction of black holes, before black holes were confirmed to exist.

And at no point in this entire conversation, have I have said that I claim that multiverse factually exists, nore that the model that predicts it is conclusive, or even only well-tested (it's not). Nore do I even feel the need to defend this model or whatever. I couldn't even do so if I wanted to, since my knowledge is by far not sufficient to do so.


I don't get why you feel the need to go down this elaborate phylosophy path, seemingly just to avoid acknowledging the difference between a scientific prediction on the one hand, and a religious claim on the other.



If we currently wouldn't have the technology to detect black holes, would you also reply with all that philosophy mumbo jumbo if I would say that black holes are a scientific prediction of a scientific model and not comparable to gods, which are just claimed without evidence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm just discussion a metaphysical idea wich is the result of a scientific prediction by a scientific model and how that is different from a metaphysical idea wich is the result of a standalone bare claim that is not the result of rational framework of inquiry.

I just think it's funny that you then feel the need to drive down pure philosophy lane and literally question knowledge itself, completely ignoring every and all practical merrits, seemingly just to avoid acknowledging the point being made.

The point being made was a very simple one.
The way you are responding to it, is completely absurd and, to me at least, seems designed specifically to act as a conversation stopper.

There we go again. You are subjective there.
You want to do philosophy; i.e. metaphysics. Fair enough, now we start here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
That is written by scientists:
Here is the relevant part:
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

How so? All metaphysical claims including supernatural, are about what is beyond/before/behind the physical. Since science deals with the physical, it is a logical contradiction, so say that science deal with that which is physical and with something other than it as beyond/before/behind the physical. It is a contradiction in terms or as per the definition if science and nothing something science do.

You are doing philosophy and a Boltzmann Brain is theoretical physics, not philosophy. The links I gave in regards to that, was about scientists. The problem is that the solution is to "THRUST your senses and thinking". That leads to circular reasoning.

Here is a short version of philosophy being with Descartes. Philosophers figured out that there was no certain Truth, Proof or what ever. Kant pointed out, that all positive metaphysics is a waste of time, because all we can know about the objective reality is that it is independent of the mind. Hence empiricism and that you start with the experiences of humans. The problem with metaphysics is that it is all in the head of the person doing it. So with you and everybody else.

Now the actual really life everyday falsification of metaphysics is that everybody can get away with any metaphysical claim they like. That tells you, if you are objective, that it is subjective. It is in the head of the person doing the positive metaphysical.claim.

Now if you want to understand how science works in practice, then it has given up on truth, proof and what not. It starts with: We trust our senses and reason and don't metaphysics. We deal with reality as it appears to us.
Metaphysics is not about how reality appears to us, but what is behind that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Could this explain it?

Sigh.

I truly expected better basic awareness of facts, even from creationists.

To say nothing of plain intellectual honesty.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

The multiverse is not a "supernatural explanation". It's not even an explanation.
It's a prediction that flows naturally from a scientific model.


If you had paid a bit of attention to what I wrote, instead of drowning yourself in irrelevant phylosophy mumbo jumbo, you'ld have realised that by now.

How so? All metaphysical claims including supernatural, are about what is beyond/before/behind the physical.

The multiverse is not a claim, just black holes weren't a claim. The point you keep missing exactly....................

Relativity was the claim. Black holes were the natural consequence of relativity, in case the scientific model was accurate.

The multiverse is the same species of idea as black holes.
It's not a claim. It's a prediction of a scientific model. If anything is the claim, it's that model. A scientific model.

Neither was the multiverse the underlying reason for proposing the model that predicts it, just black holes weren't the underlying reason for proposing relativity.

It's the exact same thing in that sense.

Since science deals with the physical

Yes, the scientific model that predicts a multi-verse, deals with the physical of this universe.

, it is a logical contradiction, so say that science deal with that which is physical and with something other than it as beyond/before/behind the physical. It is a contradiction in terms or as per the definition if science and nothing something science do.

What you're saying is rather a lack of understanding of the subject rather then contradictions within science.

There is nothing "contradicting" going on here. There's a scientific model that deals with physical reality. Scientific models have implications / predictions.
The multiverse happens to be one of the predictions / implications of said model.

There is nothing wrong with scientific models making predictions.
In fact, it's required.

You are doing philosophy and a Boltzmann Brain is theoretical physics, not philosophy. The links I gave in regards to that, was about scientists. The problem is that the solution is to "THRUST your senses and thinking". That leads to circular reasoning.

There's nothing circular about scientific models making predictions.

Here is a short version of philosophy being with Descartes. Philosophers figured out that there was no certain Truth, Proof or what ever. Kant pointed out, that all positive metaphysics is a waste of time, because all we can know about the objective reality is that it is independent of the mind. Hence empiricism and that you start with the experiences of humans. The problem with metaphysics is that it is all in the head of the person doing it. So with you and everybody else.

Now the actual really life everyday falsification of metaphysics is that everybody can get away with any metaphysical claim they like. That tells you, if you are objective, that it is subjective. It is in the head of the person doing the positive metaphysical.claim.

Now if you want to understand how science works in practice, then it has given up on truth, proof and what not. It starts with: We trust our senses and reason and don't metaphysics. We deal with reality as it appears to us.
Metaphysics is not about how reality appears to us, but what is behind that.

None of this matters to the point being made.
Because as I have told you inumerable times now: the multiverse is not a claim. It is a prediction of a scientific model.

Gods are claims.
The multiverse is a prediction.
Just like black holes were a predictions.

Einstein didn't claim black holes. Au contraire: he though this theory (the actual claim) was wrong, because he thought the idea of black holes was absurd.

Black holes weren't claimed. They were predicted by implication of the model of relativity.
Just like the multiverse is predicted by implication of the model of inflation.

If you are going to use your philosophy drivel to argue against the validity of scientific prediction, then you are effectively arguing against all of science.