Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

[BilliardsBall]

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.

So you are saying that math is a human construct? I thought we can use math and logic to look backwards in time at cosmology or forwards, to predict the paths of heavenly bodies as they travel through spacetime.

I find rather that math and logic are always true for all time, and thus, pre-existent before science and eternal. You've told me a lot about the nature of proof, theory, hypotheses, etc. but all of that is based on "true" and "false" and true, false and objective facts rather than subjective facts are meaningless without logic and math.

Logic and math are, as you wrote, human constructs, but universal in their laws. They are therefore true, eternal and metaphysical. Metaphysical things exist, including God, who is Spirit.

 

[metis]

Darwin didn't have the ability to prove any of the ToE, thus he could only formulate hypotheses based on his observations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

You keep using terms improperly. It appears that all you have is an equivocation fallacy.

Why does reality give you so much trouble? At any rate math and logic are tools, tools always work but they do not guarantee a correct result because they can be misused. All one has to do is to look at countless examples of poor use of them by creation "scientists".

 

[gnostic]

So you are saying that math is a human construct? I thought we can use math and logic to look backwards in time at cosmology or forwards, to predict the paths of heavenly bodies as they travel through spacetime.

I find rather that math and logic are always true for all time, and thus, pre-existent before science and eternal. You've told me a lot about the nature of proof, theory, hypotheses, etc. but all of that is based on "true" and "false" and true, false and objective facts rather than subjective facts are meaningless without logic and math.

Logic and math are, as you wrote, human constructs, but universal in their laws. They are therefore true, eternal and metaphysical. Metaphysical things exist, including God, who is Spirit.

Every single mathematical equations and formulas are tools formulated by people.

It can be very useful, but they are still tools made by mathematicians and scientists.

Some have real-world applications, while others are purely theoretical.

The ones that have useful applications, like equations and formulas used to calculate the forces, velocity and acceleration that I used in civil engineering, are real application, so they complement my works and designs, they applied to the test results.

In Superstring Theory, there are at 5 different models by different theoretical physicists, each competing with others. But to date, no tests, like LHC, have discovered the supersymmetric particles, hence still no evidences that Superstring Theory is true, scientifically.

The equations in Superstring Theory is well beyond my capacity to understand, due to their complexities. And while it may solve “everything”, and potentially wed the General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in one theory, but without the evidences to match equations, Superstring Theory is not officially a “Scientific Theory” because it still remains untestable.

BTW, the LHC tests may have failed in the Superstring or Supersymmetric department, but it still prove useful to the studies in particle physics, with the discovery of first evidences for Higgs bosons.

 

[gnostic]

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?

Which cosmology are you talking about?

There are numbers of active studies, with different models. They cannot all be correct or true. Some are purely theoretical (Oscillating Universe Model (also known as Cyclical Model or the Big Bounce), Multiverse model, String cosmology, the debunked Steady State Model (of Fred Hoyle), etc), while very few are testable (Big Bang theory).

And NASA and ESA (European Space Agency) have constructed a number of space observatories (Hubble, Spitzer, WMAP, Planck, etc), have uncovered more about the B.B. cosmology than any other cosmologies.

They don’t have the same equations, so they all cannot be true, or using your words, “eternal”.

So which one are talking about?

 

[gnostic]

You keep using terms improperly. It appears that all you have is an equivocation fallacy.

That’s the story of BB’s life, always misusing and misunderstanding science. And he can’t seem to learn from his mistakes.

 

[gnostic]

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.

I didn’t say maths are not useful, but Origin Of Species used no mathematical equations.

The most frequently used maths in science are not any equation formulated for a specific field of science, are Statistics and Probability.

Statistics are often used to calculate the successful and unsuccessful test results, when it come to experimentations.

Scientists don’t perform a single test or experiment. They performed as many as possible to verify or to refute any hypothesis or theory, and to weed out any error (eg malfunctioning measuring devices can give false readings).

The statistical data is then used to make predictions, hence applied probability comes into play.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That’s the story of BB’s life, always misusing and misunderstanding science. And he can’t seem to learn from his mistakes.

That is pretty much true for all creationists. Sooner or later they all have to abandon science, logic and reason.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You keep using terms improperly. It appears that all you have is an equivocation fallacy.

Why does reality give you so much trouble? At any rate math and logic are tools, tools always work but they do not guarantee a correct result because they can be misused. All one has to do is to look at countless examples of poor use of them by creation "scientists".

I would say to you respectfully, that although your posts show a keen intelligence in general, here they do not. For it is obvious to me that those opposed to creation science are using logic to say the logic of the creationists is wrong!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Every single mathematical equations and formulas are tools formulated by people.

It can be very useful, but they are still tools made by mathematicians and scientists.

Some have real-world applications, while others are purely theoretical.

The ones that have useful applications, like equations and formulas used to calculate the forces, velocity and acceleration that I used in civil engineering, are real application, so they complement my works and designs, they applied to the test results.

In Superstring Theory, there are at 5 different models by different theoretical physicists, each competing with others. But to date, no tests, like LHC, have discovered the supersymmetric particles, hence still no evidences that Superstring Theory is true, scientifically.

The equations in Superstring Theory is well beyond my capacity to understand, due to their complexities. And while it may solve “everything”, and potentially wed the General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in one theory, but without the evidences to match equations, Superstring Theory is not officially a “Scientific Theory” because it still remains untestable.

BTW, the LHC tests may have failed in the Superstring or Supersymmetric department, but it still prove useful to the studies in particle physics, with the discovery of first evidences for Higgs bosons.

I'm sorry, please allow me to rephrase. Do the math and logic tools always work if handled correctly, or only work sometimes? Can we use math and logic to explore the past, for example, or the future? If so, they are eternally existent metaphysics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn’t say maths are not useful, but Origin Of Species used no mathematical equations.

The most frequently used maths in science are not any equation formulated for a specific field of science, are Statistics and Probability.

Statistics are often used to calculate the successful and unsuccessful test results, when it come to experimentations.

Scientists don’t perform a single test or experiment. They performed as many as possible to verify or to refute any hypothesis or theory, and to weed out any error (eg malfunctioning measuring devices can give false readings).

The statistical data is then used to make predictions, hence applied probability comes into play.

I hope you're not saying statistics and probability avoid both math and logic?!

 

[syo]

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.

that alone is wrong. timelessness defines god alongside with cause.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would say to you respectfully, that although your posts show a keen intelligence in general, here they do not. For it is obvious to me that those opposed to creation science are using logic to say the logic of the creationists is wrong!

That only indicates a lack of logic on your side.

You do realize that there is no scientific evidence for creationism, don't you? And that there are mountains of scientific evidence that support evolution, or I at least hope you do.

Is it logical to believe an idea that is not supported by evidence in opposition to an idea that is?

 

[Polymath257]

So you are saying that math is a human construct? I thought we can use math and logic to look backwards in time at cosmology or forwards, to predict the paths of heavenly bodies as they travel through spacetime.

I find rather that math and logic are always true for all time, and thus, pre-existent before science and eternal. You've told me a lot about the nature of proof, theory, hypotheses, etc. but all of that is based on "true" and "false" and true, false and objective facts rather than subjective facts are meaningless without logic and math.

Logic and math are, as you wrote, human constructs, but universal in their laws. They are therefore true, eternal and metaphysical. Metaphysical things exist, including God, who is Spirit.

I'm going to enter into this as a professional mathematician.

Mathematics is a language. By allowing for a very wide range of assumptions to be explored, it also allows for a very wide range of experiences to be described.

So, no. Mathematics is not 'true for all time' any more than chess is a game that has existed for all time. Both are human constructs. Both play by certain rules dictated by humans as ways we help ourselves understand things.

Now, the vast majority of people are not aware of the range of possibilities allowed in mathematics and in logic. For example, three-valued logic (not just true and false) has been extensively investigated and has its uses. Non-Euclidean geometries and alternative arithmetics have been studied and also have places where they are valuable.

Not even in the 'laws' are logic and math universal. many alternatives are possible and have been explored.

Yes, math can be used to predict things about the real world. That is part of its expressive power. But *which* math is to be used depends on observation and testing. it isn't automatic and it is certainly not something we can know a priori.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry, please allow me to rephrase. Do the math and logic tools always work if handled correctly, or only work sometimes? Can we use math and logic to explore the past, for example, or the future? If so, they are eternally existent metaphysics.

Yes, we can use math and logic *and observation* to help us describe laws that help us understand the past and future.

No, that does not mean that math and logic are eternally existent metaphysical entities. They are very powerful *languages* that we humans use to help us to understand. But *which* aspects of math and which form of logic are to be used are matters of observation and testing through the scientific method.

When you use the phrase 'if used correctly', you are begging the question, you see. I can do 'correct mathematics' that does not give the correct answers in the real world. The question is how to make that correspondence between the language of math and what we observe in the real world. That correspondence is not trivial and has to be tested through observation to make sure it applies in any given situation.

A trivial example: put two rocks in a container and add two more. It is quite possible to find six rocks in the container later if the two that were added had enough energy to break up themselves or the rocks that were already in there. You can say we applied the math incorrectly OR we could say that the math did not apply in this case. But we might find that some other principle like the conservation of mass is valid. How we apply the language of math needs to be tested through observation to see when it works and when it does not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That only indicates a lack of logic on your side.

You do realize that there is no scientific evidence for creationism, don't you? And that there are mountains of scientific evidence that support evolution, or I at least hope you do.

Is it logical to believe an idea that is not supported by evidence in opposition to an idea that is?

Go back one post of yours, and you'll see what I was saying. You claimed no logic is involved in exploring creation science, then showed with your post you yourself felt you've successfully used logic to debunk it, which further makes creation science claims falsifiable, if you would simply admit what you wrote.

There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution. There are mountains of evidence supporting creation. What shall we do?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm going to enter into this as a professional mathematician.

Mathematics is a language. By allowing for a very wide range of assumptions to be explored, it also allows for a very wide range of experiences to be described.

So, no. Mathematics is not 'true for all time' any more than chess is a game that has existed for all time. Both are human constructs. Both play by certain rules dictated by humans as ways we help ourselves understand things.

Now, the vast majority of people are not aware of the range of possibilities allowed in mathematics and in logic. For example, three-valued logic (not just true and false) has been extensively investigated and has its uses. Non-Euclidean geometries and alternative arithmetics have been studied and also have places where they are valuable.

Not even in the 'laws' are logic and math universal. many alternatives are possible and have been explored.

Yes, math can be used to predict things about the real world. That is part of its expressive power. But *which* math is to be used depends on observation and testing. it isn't automatic and it is certainly not something we can know a priori.

The original assertion was "math is metaphysical in nature," axiomatic, yet without mass and energy. Also metaphysical are love, justice, morals, and God as Spirit.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, we can use math and logic *and observation* to help us describe laws that help us understand the past and future.

No, that does not mean that math and logic are eternally existent metaphysical entities. They are very powerful *languages* that we humans use to help us to understand. But *which* aspects of math and which form of logic are to be used are matters of observation and testing through the scientific method.

When you use the phrase 'if used correctly', you are begging the question, you see. I can do 'correct mathematics' that does not give the correct answers in the real world. The question is how to make that correspondence between the language of math and what we observe in the real world. That correspondence is not trivial and has to be tested through observation to make sure it applies in any given situation.

A trivial example: put two rocks in a container and add two more. It is quite possible to find six rocks in the container later if the two that were added had enough energy to break up themselves or the rocks that were already in there. You can say we applied the math incorrectly OR we could say that the math did not apply in this case. But we might find that some other principle like the conservation of mass is valid. How we apply the language of math needs to be tested through observation to see when it works and when it does not.

It is a trivial example, since if we find six rocks, the math statement 2 (added) + 4 (broken off) STILL EQUALS 6.

Now it seems like you are saying that we are learning so many things through observation over time, that no part of math can be taken as axiomatic. That's going to make my grocery trips difficult.

And if, as you wrote, math and logic help us understand the past and future, it must be taken as axiomatic that laws of math and logic do not change over time, making them eternal (if the universe is eternal) or created (if the universe is created).

Check.

 

[Muslimman]

There are many possibilities for its cause other than god. Maybe it's an alien kid's science experiment. Maybe it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Himself. Maybe a metaphysical dragon from another universe barfed it up. Who knows?

Seriously ?! Is this some kind of a joke ?

If it's a joke, this should be in humor , not science, section.

If you have such a strange beliefs, you didn't mention who created this creatures, kids and monsters, in the first place !
You may ask: Who created God? God is uncreated by definition.
We take God as a God because He is uncreated. If he was created He would not be God, and therefore we would not take him as God. This is much more convincing belief than doubt (of the atheists) who have no answer. One of the attributes of God is that He is Eternal. By definition Eternal is forever with no beginning; therefore the question is absurd. Only temporal/non-eternal beings are created. By logic, everyone agrees with the fact that there was something Eternal which gave life to this universe and its inhabitants. We believe that the Eternal is everlasting and intelligent being and we call Him God. Take the example of the bullet that was fired by a soldier, we ask him: Who give you the order, he responded: My commander who also received the order by an officer with a higher rank , this goes on until we reach the top commander who must exist to give the original order, otherwise, there would be no bullet fired in the first place. So, Eternal Creator is the only plausible answer for this world of creation.

That's why the argument address any human who has a mind. It's direct, simple and doesn't require any extraordinary efforts to grasp.

 

[gnostic]

I'm sorry, please allow me to rephrase. Do the math and logic tools always work if handled correctly, or only work sometimes? Can we use math and logic to explore the past, for example, or the future? If so, they are eternally existent metaphysics.

You and your metaphysics, again.

Metaphysics is a BS philosophy, because it is frequently misused and misunderstood, especially when people like yourself try to mix it with empirical/experimental science, or with maths.

Experimental science do use maths, but as a useful tools, not as “eternal” law, and it is not a “be all solution”. Maths don’t have all the answers.

In the real world, nothing is perfect, and reality can change.

Science required real world information, and that mean observations, eg finding evidences in the field or performing “x-number of” experiments or tests in the lab.

Newton’s theory on mechanism, of motion, gravity and forces, it works fine, in the real world, and on day-to-day basis, with the equations and formulas.

However it is not perfect, especially when it concern the bodies outside of our Solar System, and even outside of our galaxy. The classical Newtonian theory of gravity is insufficient and updating, and Einstein made those changes, in which General Relativity give us understanding of the universe outside of Local Group.

It is with Einstein’s field equations of General Relativity and the FLRW metric (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric), that scientists were able to determine the universe have been expanding since the “Big Bang”, mathematically.

But it wasn’t the maths alone that change the Big Bang from “hypothesis” to a fully fledged “scientific theory”; no, it was the evidences that determine:

1. The observing of galaxies moving away from each other, was determined by the wavelength of electromagnetic appear “redshifted”. It was predicted by Howard Percy Robertson, in 1924-25, and discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929.
2. And the evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which was predicted in 1948, by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, and discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964. More detailed mapping of CMBR, came from the WMAP and the Planck missions.

Meaning the Newtonian gravity don’t apply in the study of deep space and the universe.

Newtonian gravity and mechanism also don’t work with particles, smaller than protons, which is where Quantum Mechanics come in.

There are lot of mathematical equations within Quantum Physics, but it is the testable “evidences” that make it real, not just the maths.

If the Newton’s theory on gravity (and its maths) was eternal, then it should have applied to massive astronomical bodies (eg stars, galaxies, etc), or to objects smaller than the hadron particles (eg smaller than protons or neutrons, like quarks, leptons, bosons, etc)...

...well, it doesn’t.

Sometimes maths work, but sometimes they don’t.

If maths were perfect, and work every single time, then there would only be constants, no variables.

But the world is perfect, nor are every equations.