Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[BilliardsBall]

Please try to approach the topic honestly. In the lab they are avoiding "intelligent designers". And what makes you think that only a fraction has been solved? I know that you love strawman arguments. Try to use appropriate descriptions of what how the research is done and what has been accomplished.

Huh? In the lab, how does anyone do something that isn't designed?

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. I don’t agree.

As I have been saying all along, since you started bringing up this axiomatic crap and metaphysics crap, that there is more to experimental/empirical science than just maths.

Yes, a lot of science do include mathematical statements, like equations, formulas and constants, but what actually verify any scientific theory, is OBSERVATIONS, not just maths.

OBSERVATION, as in -
EXPERIMENT and TESTING, and repeating EXPERIMENTS and repeating TESTING, for verification.
Discovering EVIDENCE, and finding more EVIDENCES, again for verification.

You keep ignoring the part, where I have been saying empirical science rely more on EVIDENCES Tthan on maths.

Finding verifiable evidences, mean that the scientific theory isn’t hypothetical (proposed testable explanation), isn’t theoretical (explanation on mathematical proof), and isn’t merely metaphysics (philosophy on existence and “being”).

Can you not read?

I can read. Observation/experiment/testing is designed to find whether a thing is or may be true or false. Observation can also tell us things like "X percentage of Y group is Z". Both these observations accept FIRST that math is "real" and logic is "real". Do you disagree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? In the lab, how does anyone do something that isn't designed?

Amazing! Easy, by not trying for a preset goal. One may have a suspicion that a certain outcome will result, but that does not mean that that result was "designed".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can read. Observation/experiment/testing is designed to find whether a thing is or may be true or false. Observation can also tell us things like "X percentage of Y group is Z". Both these observations accept FIRST that math is "real" and logic is "real". Do you disagree?

Math is simply a tool. It simply "is", as is logic. It is a tool that we have developed to understand our world. So if people are real the things that we make are real.

And yes, they are a tool that were made to find out whether things are true or not. It appears that you are trying to form a red herring.

 

[Polymath257]

I can read. Observation/experiment/testing is designed to find whether a thing is or may be true or false. Observation can also tell us things like "X percentage of Y group is Z". Both these observations accept FIRST that math is "real" and logic is "real". Do you disagree?

Not at all. Math is a real collection of human thoughts and human descriptions to help humans understand the universe. Logic is a part of math.

 

[Polymath257]

Huh? In the lab, how does anyone do something that isn't designed?

By not having a goal other than to see what will happen. It isn't design to see what happens when baking soda and vinegar are mixed. And the result doesn't depend on having an intelligence put them together.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. Math is a real collection of human thoughts and human descriptions to help humans understand the universe. Logic is a part of math.

Perhaps he is conflating repeatability of results with "design". The first time baking powder and vinegar are mixed one may not know what the results would be. That the results are repeatable would only mean that the result was "designed" after the fact.

 

[gnostic]

I can read. Observation/experiment/testing is designed to find whether a thing is or may be true or false. Observation can also tell us things like "X percentage of Y group is Z". Both these observations accept FIRST that math is "real" and logic is "real". Do you disagree?

Are you illiterate or something?

I have stated again, again, again and again...and again, that it is the evidences that determine if any testable hypothesis or theory is true or false, and not math and logic.

Yes, the math and logic can complement with the evidences, but they never overrule the evidences.

It is the “verifiable evidences” that determine if explanation/predictions from the theory are “factual”, not the maths.

Without the evidences, any model isn’t “scientific theory”, it isn’t science.

You can pour all the maths in world into a single model and it might work mathematically, but if (A) it cannot be tested or (B) the evidences are contrary to the model, then the model has been debunked or fall in the realm of theoretical science.

Fields in theoretical science relied mostly on maths (proofs) and logic, but they failed in the evidence department, so it isn’t really science.

Theoretical physics, like String Theory, Superstring Theory, etc, may use the word “theory” as part of their name, but they are not accepted “scientific theory”, they are merely proposed explanations and proposed models.

Some theories, like Einstein’s Relativity may have started theoretically, with some maths and logical explanations, but it was when scientists were able to obtain observatory evidences, that verified General Relativity to be true, not the maths.

I am not saying that maths and logic should be ditched, because they can be useful and can have applications, like engineering, for examples, but it is always evidences that determine what is true or factual, or what is false and refutable.

 

[Darkstorn]

Are you illiterate or something?

I think he chooses to be sometimes.

Easier than addressing actual points.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Math is simply a tool. It simply "is", as is logic. It is a tool that we have developed to understand our world. So if people are real the things that we make are real.

And yes, they are a tool that were made to find out whether things are true or not. It appears that you are trying to form a red herring.

What do you mean, math "is"? Do you mean that math and logic are accepted as axiomatic, fundamental, eternal (always in all measurements when looking back, say, to cosmological history) and etc.

That would be the "truth", would it not?

 

[BilliardsBall]

By not having a goal other than to see what will happen. It isn't design to see what happens when baking soda and vinegar are mixed. And the result doesn't depend on having an intelligence put them together.

It isn't design to bring the soda and vinegar together, to record observations, to choose soda and vinegar...?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all. Math is a real collection of human thoughts and human descriptions to help humans understand the universe. Logic is a part of math.

Do logic and math always work, for example, when researching cosmology, thus making them eternal, axiomatic truth?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Are you illiterate or something?

I have stated again, again, again and again...and again, that it is the evidences that determine if any testable hypothesis or theory is true or false, and not math and logic.

Yes, the math and logic can complement with the evidences, but they never overrule the evidences.

It is the “verifiable evidences” that determine if explanation/predictions from the theory are “factual”, not the maths.

Without the evidences, any model isn’t “scientific theory”, it isn’t science.

You can pour all the maths in world into a single model and it might work mathematically, but if (A) it cannot be tested or (B) the evidences are contrary to the model, then the model has been debunked or fall in the realm of theoretical science.

Fields in theoretical science relied mostly on maths (proofs) and logic, but they failed in the evidence department, so it isn’t really science.

Theoretical physics, like String Theory, Superstring Theory, etc, may use the word “theory” as part of their name, but they are not accepted “scientific theory”, they are merely proposed explanations and proposed models.

Some theories, like Einstein’s Relativity may have started theoretically, with some maths and logical explanations, but it was when scientists were able to obtain observatory evidences, that verified General Relativity to be true, not the maths.

I am not saying that maths and logic should be ditched, because they can be useful and can have applications, like engineering, for examples, but it is always evidences that determine what is true or factual, or what is false and refutable.

Help me understand. You wrote: "math and logic can complement evidence, but never overrules evidence".

So therefore, IF that is true:

We can take 150 false observations above 1 true observation, since "math and logic never overrules evidence".

How about this? Name a science you enjoy where there is no math used and no logic to determine/prove/theorize something.

 

[atanu]

By not having a goal other than to see what will happen. It isn't design to see what happens when baking soda and vinegar are mixed. And the result doesn't depend on having an intelligence put them together.

There still needs an experimental design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, math "is"? Do you mean that math and logic are accepted as axiomatic, fundamental, eternal (always in all measurements when looking back, say, to cosmological history) and etc.

That would be the "truth", would it not?

Define "truth". It appears that you are making an equivocation error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do logic and math always work, for example, when researching cosmology, thus making them eternal, axiomatic truth?

It could be said to be "design" after the results are known and it is repeated, it is not design before the fact. Just as the experiments in abiogenesis. The results are not known before the tests, but if the tests repeatedly show that a step in the formation of life can and will happen what does that tell you?

 

[gnostic]

Help me understand. You wrote: "math and logic can complement evidence, but never overrules evidence".

So therefore, IF that is true:

We can take 150 false observations above 1 true observation, since "math and logic never overrules evidence".

How about this? Name a science you enjoy where there is no math used and no logic to determine/prove/theorize something.

Natural Selection, when Charles Darwin had his papers in 1859 On The Origin Of Species, contain not a single mathematical equation or formula.

His work are based all on observations in his travel during 1931 to 1936, aboard the HMS Beagle, and continuing his research at the university (eg Cambridge), at Geological Society of London, at Zoological Society of London, and meetings various leading scientists of the day, from 1936 to the day of publication (Charles Lyell, Richard Owen, John Gould, Joseph Dalton Hooker, Thomas Henry Huxley and Alfred Russel Wallace), all assisted him in some ways to better understanding geology, botany and zoology.

Alfred Russel Wallace was like Darwin, traveled much (late 1840s) and kept notes on his observations, which he published essay - On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species - which also show Wallace drawing similar lines on Natural Selection, and not a single equation or formula to be seen.

They both worked on observations of not just fossils but on observing living creatures, especially during their respective travels.

Darwin and Wallace both drew their concepts from observations and from comparison of life form and great deal of researches, and not from mathematical equations or formulas.

 

[gnostic]

Help me understand. You wrote: "math and logic can complement evidence, but never overrules evidence".

So therefore, IF that is true:

We can take 150 false observations above 1 true observation, since "math and logic never overrules evidence".

How about this? Name a science you enjoy where there is no math used and no logic to determine/prove/theorize something.

You keep forgetting maths and logic are tools of human construct.

None of mathematical equations exist without mathematicians and scientists and engineers, conceiving and applying these logical concepts.

They are “real” as they have useful applications.

But maths don’t determine which science is real and working science - evidences do.

You still don’t understand the concept of observations in connection to science, through empirical evidences and repeated experiments, do you?

You are failing to grasp the bigger picture of what real science (experimental and empirical science) are.

I believed that you are still confusing real science with theoretical models.

What we called fields of theoretical physics (or theoretical science), are actually provable hypothetical models, which rely on mathematical equations, not evidences, to support their explanations.

But as I keep pointing out to you, theoretical science, like hypotheses, are only “proposed” models and “proposed” explanations, meaning they are accepted, yet, as “scientific theory” are accepted.

The Superstring Theory (SST), the supposedly Theory of Everything, is actually not scientific theory; they are proposed model that haven’t been definitively and conclusively tested (meaning it has “no evidences”). Currently there are several competing versions of Superstring Theory, but to date, none of them are accepted as scientific theory.

How many times, must I tell you this before you finally understand mathematical-proven models are science until they meet the requirements of falsification and scientific method?

Is there some maths involved in science? My questions are yes, but there is a lot more to science than just maths.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It could be said to be "design" after the results are known and it is repeated, it is not design before the fact. Just as the experiments in abiogenesis. The results are not known before the tests, but if the tests repeatedly show that a step in the formation of life can and will happen what does that tell you?

What does that have to do with the quote you took from me? "Do logic and math always work, for example, when researching cosmology, thus making them eternal, axiomatic truth?"

Are logic and math "real" and "always apply", for example, in extrapolating backwards through time when studying cosmology? Are they true and eternal or no?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Natural Selection, when Charles Darwin had his papers in 1859 On The Origin Of Species, contain not a single mathematical equation or formula.

His work are based all on observations in his travel during 1931 to 1936, aboard the HMS Beagle, and continuing his research at the university (eg Cambridge), at Geological Society of London, at Zoological Society of London, and meetings various leading scientists of the day, from 1936 to the day of publication (Charles Lyell, Richard Owen, John Gould, Joseph Dalton Hooker, Thomas Henry Huxley and Alfred Russel Wallace), all assisted him in some ways to better understanding geology, botany and zoology.

Alfred Russel Wallace was like Darwin, traveled much (late 1840s) and kept notes on his observations, which he published essay - On the Law which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species - which also show Wallace drawing similar lines on Natural Selection, and not a single equation or formula to be seen.

They both worked on observations of not just fossils but on observing living creatures, especially during their respective travels.

Darwin and Wallace both drew their concepts from observations and from comparison of life form and great deal of researches, and not from mathematical equations or formulas.

Correct. Are you saying observations don't include counting or that Origin of Species doesn't use logic in its lines of argumentation?

All scientific observation reports numbers.