Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[osgart]

Sorry but the only reason it "makes sense" to you is because it appeals to your emotions. You are the one making an extraordinary claim, you put the burden of proof clearly upon yourself by doing so. That is why I asked for evidence. You have admitted that you do not have any. We are pretty much done here.

Emotion has nothing to do with it. It is not an extraordinary claim whatsoever. It is logical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Emotion has nothing to do with it. It is not an extraordinary claim whatsoever. It is logical.

Nope, if it was logical you could support it with more than a handwave.

ETA: And yes, invoking magic is always an extraordinary claim that has always failed to date.

 

[gnostic]

Are you sure Job was even a Hebrew?

I didn't say Job was Hebrew (Israelite or Jew). I wrote "Hebrew sources", as in books, like the Book of Job, Exodus, etc.

You do know what sources mean, don't you?

Primary sources, secondary sources...does that ring any bell here?

 

[gnostic]

Does the Bible claim to be a science book?

I was arguing that the Bible is or isn't science book.

I am saying it (Bible) has contents of "no scientific values".

Why are you not reading my reply in context? Why are you twisting everything I say?

 

[osgart]

Nope, if it was logical you could support it with more than a handwave.

ETA: And yes, invoking magic is always an extraordinary claim that has always failed to date.

Magic is intelligence from non intelligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Magic is intelligence from non intelligence.

Nope, try again. That is an argument from ignorance. You propose magic, not me.

 

[osgart]

Word games. What you suggest is poofery!

What I'm saying is self evident. Its that simple to millions of people.

The alphabet appearing on its own mindlessly is what you suggest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Word games. What you suggest is poofery!

What I'm saying is self evident. Its that simple to millions of people.

The alphabet appearing on its own mindlessly is what you suggest.

Nope. Once again you are the one that believes in magic. What I said is based upon observed and measurable science. I will help you with the concepts that you do not understand. But you really should watch this video first:

 

[osgart]

Nope. Once again you are the one that believes in magic. What I said is based upon observed and measurable science. I will help you with the concepts that you do not understand. But you really should watch this video first:

Thankyou for the video. Why should i change my mind based on that?

Im really not religious. I just infer that there is natural intelligence at work. A book about that is J. Scott Turner's 'Purpose and Desire'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thankyou for the video. Why should i change my mind based on that?

Im really not religious. I just infer that there is natural intelligence at work. A book about that is J. Scott Turner's 'Purpose and Desire'.

Sorry, late at night and I conflated what you were debating about with another. But you still have not shown how your beliefs are "logical". They are merely wishful thinking at best.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You're so eager to accept the latest the scientific theory until a better one comes.

Scientific theories and the innovations springing from them have been very useful. Shouldn't we eagerly anticipate more?

Yet ironically, you want us to not accept the current best explanation for the cause of everything: God.

I doubt that most skeptics care if others believe in gods. Has anybody asked you to stop believing?

Incidentally, merely saying that something was done by God is no more of an explanation than saying it happened on its own without a god. The explanation involves the mechanism involved to do it. So, for example, the theory of evolution is an explanation for why the family of life appears as it does today, the mechanism being the application of natural selection to genetic variation in offspring competing for scarce resources. That's how the theory explains the transition from a single ancestral population to the diversity and commonality of life today.

Remove the mechanism and you've removed the explanation. If you think about it, God did it is no more explanatory than claiming Norman did it.

Most creationists believe in science but we believe science explains how God does things.

The god part isn't needed.

It's enough to study and describe nature as it appears. There is no reason to assume that the universe didn't evolve physically, chemically, biologically, and psychologically without help. Injecting a god concept into science adds nothing to understanding, and knowing it is not useful in any way even if correct.

Your argument does not disprove the existence of God or the idea that God designed the system.

Correct. No argument or demonstration rules out intelligent design. It remains logically possible.

The rational skeptic, however, needs a reason before believing anything, including that the universe was intelligently designed. Being possible isn't enough. If it were, we could all just claim that gods don't exist because that's possible.

Does the Bible claim to be a science book?

The Bible tried to do what science does today much better. It tried to explain how all that we see got here and how the world works. For example, as cosmologists and astronomers do today, it described the structure of the cosmos - an immovable earth, all of which was visible from a height, set on pillars and covered by a moving dome that contained the heavenly bodies and separated the earth from the waters above the stars and planets.

And where science tells us about the evolution of the universe over 13.8 billion years, with the sun and earth appearing only in the last 4.5 billion years, terrestrial life about a half billion years or so, and modern man appearing about 200,000 years ago, the Bible tells us about the evolution of the universe over six days.

 

[Sapiens]

Something supernatural is currently the best explanation in my view. You're so eager to accept the latest the scientific theory until a better one comes.

That is how science works, it is one of its greatest strengths.

Yet ironically, you want us to not accept the current best explanation for the cause of everything: God.

Except for the fact that there is no evidence of a god being the cause of anything, the best one can do in that direction is an argument from ignorance.

Just because you don't understand what God is talking about; that doesn't mean God is wrong.

I have never heard a deity say anything. If I thought that I did ... I'd seek psychiatric help.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? (Romans 11:33-34)

Got anything besides Bronze Age fables to make your case?

You're definitely arguing against a straw-man. Most creationists believe in science but we believe science explains how God does things. Your argument does not disprove the existence of God or the idea that God designed the system.

But, in the case you describe, a god is utterly superfluous.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Something supernatural is currently the best explanation in my view. You're so eager to accept the latest the scientific theory until a better one comes.


Just because you don't understand what God is talking about; that doesn't mean God is wrong.


... Obviously

'Nature is the executor of God's laws': Galileo


Right or wrong, this is inherently the more scientifically productive approach- it does not seek to close the case on the simplest materialist explanation at hand, it has no resistance to constantly challenging simple superficial observations- Newtonian physics, steady state, Darwinism, it is always open to discovering new deeper layers, more complexity, sophistication in nature- without any fear of the implications of it.

 

[74x12]

But, in the case you describe, a god is utterly superfluous.

That's your opinion. However, that wasn't even my argument. In context he was making the point that if you believe in God you don't understand science and are simply ignoring science.

Got anything besides Bronze Age fables to make your case?

Incorrect. It's a quotation from Paul. A classical era writing from the time of the Roman empire.

I have never heard a deity say anything. If I thought that I did ... I'd seek psychiatric help.

I beg to differ. However, I was responding to his arguments against God's speech in the book of Job. Nice try.

That is how science works, it is one of its greatest strengths.

I was not arguing against the scientific method.

 

[Sapiens]

That's your opinion. However, that wasn't even my argument. In context he was making the point that if you believe in God you don't understand science and are simply ignoring science.

It does not matter, a god remains superfluous.

Incorrect. It's a quotation from Paul. A classical era writing from the time of the Roman empire.

Regardless of who is being quoted it is still inspired by a Bronze Age fable.

I beg to differ. However, I was responding to his arguments against God's speech in the book of Job. Nice try.

Beg all you want ... it will not help your case.

I was not arguing against the scientific method.

You said, "Something supernatural is currently the best explanation in my view. You're so eager to accept the latest the scientific theory until a better one comes." That reads an awful lot like a passing poor argument against the scientific method.

 

[atanu]

I have never heard a deity say anything. If I thought that I did ... I'd seek psychiatric help.

You know, in Hinduism, the Lord is called Rudra. It is Sanskrit and it means soundmaker. Every born baby cries ‘bhan’ and that is said to be a sound of Rudra only.

Although that concept would seem to be from older than even the Bronze Age, if one truly traced one’s sounds back to the source of ‘I’, one might become a bit more circumspect.

 

[Sapiens]

You know, in Hinduism, the Lord is called Rudra. It is Sanskrit and it means soundmaker. Every born baby cries ‘bhan’ and that is said to be a sound of Rudra only.

Although that concept would seem to be from older than even the Bronze Age, if one truly traced one’s sounds back to the source of ‘I’, one might become a bit more circumspect.

... or one might seek audiological help.

 

[74x12]

You said, "Something supernatural is currently the best explanation in my view. You're so eager to accept the latest the scientific theory until a better one comes." That reads an awful lot like a passing poor argument against the scientific method.

No it wasn't an argument against the scientific method. I guess everyone missed my true point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No it wasn't an argument against the scientific method. I guess everyone missed my true point.

Not everyone. The scientific method can, so far, determine only one cause capable of originating the information systems which support physical reality as we know it. That is creative intelligence.

Some on both sides of the debate describe this explanation as 'supernatural', and I would agree. If your explanation for nature itself, cannot transcend nature itself... you are barking up the wrong tree!

 

[atanu]

... or one might seek audiological help.

Yes. And then you may also say that Alexa or Siri are better gods. Ha ha.