The misuse of science by William Lane Craig and othe Christian apologists.

[shunyadragon]

Derp, yeah. My bad. I meant cosmological constant. Brain fart.

I mean that the value of the cosmological constant being having the value that it does is far more epistemically probable under the design hypothesis than under the chance or necessity hypotheses. I don't know if that qualifies as a 'prediction' in the scientific sense, however.

No, it does not qualify for a 'prediction' in the scientific sense, which is the issue here. The claim of something being 'far more epistemically probable under the design hypothesis.' is not falsifiable by any theory nor hypothesis by objective scientific methods. It remains simply a philosophical/theological assumption to justify an argument for the existence of God(s).

Chance is a naive layman's odd consideration, and not a consideration of science. The scientific assumption is that the uniformity of the nature of our existence, and natural lwa is the most probable explanation based on the evidence.

[Rational Gaze]

What is the reasoning behind this? Both that a unconscious timeless entity could not, and a conscious one could?

Because that is the crux of the matter.

Because unconscious entities lack an independent will. They can't freely will to do anything. A personal entity can freely will to do things.

[Rational Gaze]

No, it does not qualify for a 'prediction' in the scientific sense, which is the issue here. The claim of something being 'far more epistemically probable under the design hypothesis.' is not falsifiable by any theory nor hypothesis by objective scientific methods. It remains simply a philosophical/theological assumption to justify an argument for the existence of God(s).

Well, this is clearly false. Since epistemic probability IS utilised in 'objective' scientific methodology.

Chance is a naive layman's odd consideration, and not a consideration of science.

Yeah, it's a consideration in the philosophy of science.

The scientific assumption is that the uniformity of the nature of our existence, and natural lwa is the most probable explanation based on the evidence.

You just said that probability is not falsifiable or testable by any theory, hypothesis, or objective scientific methods.

[Rational Gaze]

Not a circular argument at all from the scientific perspective. There is nothing wrong with the falsified possibility that multiverses exist, because this is by far the consensus of contemporary scientists.

The highlighted above simply refers to the space/time of our universe, and neither infers nor demonstrates the nature of the origins of our universe and our greater cosmos that our universe is a part of.

It is most definitely 'begging the question' or a circular argument to conclude that ID is demonstrated because of the nature of the constants of our universe. There is no falsifiable thesis nor hypothesis that would justify this conclusion.

In other words, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

[shunyadragon]

Well, this is clearly false. Since epistemic probability IS utilised in 'objective' scientific methodology.


Yeah, it's a consideration in the philosophy of science.

. . . but not based on philosophical/theological assumptions.

You just said that probability is not falsifiable or testable by any theory, hypothesis, or objective scientific methods.

. . . but not based on philosophical/theological assumptions. actually probability itself is not easily falsifiable, unless there is objective scientific evidence to support it. In your epistimological argument the evidence is lacking to support falsification.

[shunyadragon]

In other words, you don't understand what circular reasoning is.

I do understand very well. When the argument (mis)using science is based on philosophical/theological assumptions it is not falsifiable by scientific methods therefore circular. What you referred to is not circular, because it is indeed based on falsifiable science that the most likely cause is a natural explanation.

[Kbertsche]

What do you think it is ironic here? My basic point still stands; if the universe is due to "quantum fluctuation", then far from being highly improbably, a zero mass-energy is a certainty.

Yes; IF our 13.7 billion year old universe is due to a "quantum fluctuation" then its total mass-energy must be almost exactly zero. But this is essentially a tautology. It explains nothing.

WHY would our universe be due to a quantum fluctuation? WHY would there be such an unusual quantum fluctuation, for which we have no other examples?

[Kbertsche]

When did I promise such a thing???
For the nature of quantum mechanics, see a good quantum mechanics textbook. But the "formation of universes" is more philosophy than science. Perhaps some of the proposals can be falsified, but so far as I know most of these ideas are not testable and not falsifiable.

As far as you know?!?!? what qualifications do you have to 'know' this.

We are not here to argue qualifications and credentials (if we do, you will lose!). We are here to discuss facts and ideas.

If you want to maintain that the "formation of universes" is indeed science, please show how its theories are testable and falsifiable. If they aren't (as I suspect), these theories are not science.

Statements that the physics and cosmology of the origins of universes are 'philosophy' is unfounded.

Then please explain how theories of the "origins of universes" can be tested or falsified.

The current subject is based on Craig's assertion that science supports his philosophical/theological Kalam Cosmological arguments. The bottom line that needs to be responded to is that any theory of absolute beginnings proposed by Craig cannot be falsified nor determined as viable by the objective methods of science.

Why does this need to be responded to any further? I have already agreed that Craig is presenting philosophy, not science (though his philosophy is fully consistent with modern science).

But I would go further. ANY theory of absolute beginnings (whether from Craig or Hawking or anyone else) "cannot be falsified nor determined as viable by the objective methods of science". The origin of the universe cannot stem from the universe itself, it must come from outside. Therefore it is extra-natural or super-natural.

In the highlighted above you seem to have the view that something can concluded as true or false by the objective scientific methods, and this a naive layman's view.

Do you understand the term "falsifiable"? Real science certainly CAN prove theories and hypotheses to be false! (Science can't prove a theory to be true, of course.)

It is not a promise anyone made. It was the statement of impossibility that you made and did not back up.You total ignorance of the Physics and Cosmology of models for the possible origins of our universe and all possible universes. The models are indeed subject to the falsification of theories and hypothesis of scientific methods. Some models have of course been found faulty by these methods and discarded like early cyclic models, but the models are constantly evolving based on new knowledge. The String Theory of universes originating from Quantum fluctuations is only one model, and is subject to change, and of course falsification if no longer found to be a viable model, but your statement of 'impossibility' is unsubstantiated. A more recent model describes universes forming from the collapse of black holes as a form of cyclic/bounce. The following paper describes the process of evolving models from differetn scientisats over time that develop models for the origins of universes.

Note the following section from the quote that you presented:

Source: Quentin Smith(?)

...Roughly, the idea is that there are now and will be many competing cosmological theories, all of which are both observationally equivalent and underdetermined by the observational evidence.

... I do not agree with the many physicists who think we should remain silent until a "hard science" quantum gravity theory is developed. From now on (I assume) cosmology is a metaphysical subject to be addressed by both physicists and philosophers.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, these theories are NOT testable or falsifiable. Thus they are NOT science; they are metaphysics. This is exactly what I've been suggesting. (Thanks for the quote; it supports my position, and contradicts yours!)

[element771]

I do understand very well. When the argument (mis)using science is based on philosophical/theological assumptions it is not falsifiable by scientific methods therefore circular. What you referred to is not circular, because it is indeed based on falsifiable science that the most likely cause is a natural explanation.

I don't think you understand "begging the question". In its basic form, begging the question is when an argument about X already assumes X in the premise. You arrive at a conclusion because you have already assumed the conclusion when building the argument.

Science is philosophically neutral, however, that doesn't mean that it can't be used in a philosophical argument. That is the point of natural theology. You take what is the current understanding of the natural world and use it to frame philosophical arguments. It is falsifiable because the science that the philosophical argument is based on is falsifiable. You can have a philosophical argument that arrives at a rock solid conclusion. However, if the scientific premises it is based on are unfounded...you have a bad argument.

[element771]

As far as you know?!?!? what qualifications do you have to 'know' this.

I would be careful here because I am fairly certain you don't have any qualifications to judge the merit of any of these claims. You can't just cite scientists who agree with you and ignore the ones that don't.

I noticed this pattern when discussing entropy in an earlier thread. If you want to compare credentials, fine. I am a published author regarding entropy and its consequences in closed systems. Entropy is the inverse Lannister of thermodynamics. Entropy always collects its debts.

[Adrift]

(Thanks for the quote; it supports my position, and contradicts yours!)

That's sort of par for the course with shunya. He simply does not have the patience or capacity to understand the sources he cites, and routinely uses the first thing he can google, thinking it supports him, when 9 times out of 10 it supports the person he's debating. It's pretty comical stuff.

Also, aren't you a physicist? shunya constantly telling you that you're naive or that you only have a layman's understanding of the subject when he himself can barely get a thought across, is discussing concepts, and using words and phrases he hasn't a clue about is plain dopey.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think you understand "begging the question". In its basic form, begging the question is when an argument about X already assumes X in the premise. You arrive at a conclusion because you have already assumed the conclusion when building the argument.

ID assumes ID is true in the premise as in the Discovery Institutes arguments, and Craig's apologetic arguments. There is no falsifiable scientific basis for claiming the fact that our cosmological constants are ddsigned by aliens that make universes with fixed cosmological constants is the best explanation.

Science is philosophically neutral, however, that doesn't mean that it can't be used in a philosophical argument. That is the point of natural theology. You take what is the current understanding of the natural world and use it to frame philosophical arguments. It is falsifiable because the science that the philosophical argument is based on is falsifiable. You can have a philosophical argument that arrives at a rock solid conclusion. However, if the scientific premises it is based on are unfounded...you have a bad argument.

This is what the problem is with claiming support for the Kalam Cosmological argument. The arguments that our physical existence is ultimately either finite nor infinite is not falsifiable by scientific methods, therefore the Kalam Cosmological argument has no support from science. The philosophical assumptions for the basis for science involve the predictive uniformity of our physical existence, and the process of falsification, which is interpreted differently by different philosophers, ie Popper.

The bottom line is that the science claimed in philosophical arguments must be falsifiable by objective scientific methods to valid in the arguments.

[shunyadragon]

I would be careful here because I am fairly certain you don't have any qualifications to judge the merit of any of these claims. You can't just cite scientists who agree with you and ignore the ones that don't.

Regardless of my qualifications (good academic background in math, science and philosophy) my best reference is to cite other scientists more qualified and published than either of us.

I noticed this pattern when discussing entropy in an earlier thread. If you want to compare credentials, fine. I am a published author regarding entropy and its consequences in closed systems. Entropy is the inverse Lannister of thermodynamics. Entropy always collects its debts.

Despite your claims of credentials, you have not justified your claims in science concerning your view of the models for the origins of the universe, and your view on what is falsification concerning the models of cosmological origins is not encouraging and reflects more philosophical/theological assumptions concerning the nature cosmological origins, an not an unbiased view of origins from the scientific perspective.

Highlighted, only in closed systems. In this view I guess individual quantum fluctuations could be considered closed systems. [B]It has not been determined that in the Quantum World of Quantum-zero point energy and quantum gravity that Entropy always collects its debts, whether the Quantum World itself is a closed system or not.

[shunyadragon]

We are not here to argue qualifications and credentials (if we do, you will lose!). We are here to discuss facts and ideas.

Well, ah . . . that is most definitely the issue when you claim qualifications and discount mine by assumption and describe some models as 'impossible' and use modifiers such as absolute beginning. I do cite qualified scientists and references, and will continue to do so.

Why does this need to be responded to any further? I have already agreed that Craig is presenting philosophy, not science (though his philosophy is fully consistent with modern science).

But I would go further. ANY theory of absolute beginnings (whether from Craig or Hawking or anyone else) "cannot be falsified nor determined as viable by the objective methods of science". The origin of the universe cannot stem from the universe itself, it must come from outside. Therefore it is extra-natural or super-natural.

Than you agree with me that Craig cannot claim the support of science to justify his claim of an absolute beginning of our physical existence. that is the primary point of my argument in this first point of the thread.

Lumped all these together:

If you want to maintain that the "formation of universes" is indeed science, please show how its theories are testable and falsifiable. If they aren't (as I suspect), these theories are not science.

Then please explain how theories of the "origins of universes" can be tested or falsified.

Do you understand the term "falsifiable"? Real science certainly CAN prove theories and hypotheses to be false! (Science can't prove a theory to be true, of course.)

Yes, I understand. I never proposed that theories, hypothesis, and related cosmological models can be proven absolutely true nor false.

. . . as far as falsafiability, some models have indeed failed do the process of falsification when new knowledge of our universe has come to light, for example when it was found that the rate of expansion was found to be slowing down some models failed and were discarded. The were not found to be false, but wanting as to the new knowledge of cosmology.

cosmological models of the origins of our universe and all possible universes definitely do go through a process of testing and falsification based on the evolving knowledge of science, and math models that support this knowledge as described that some models are discarded by this process. Testing and falsification is a long term process and not based on proof.

Note the following section from the quote that you presented:

OK, but it does not justify your assertion that cosmological models cannot be falsified, because some have been discarded based on this process, but most are evolving models based on the progressive evidence of science and improved math models.

Source: Quentin Smith(?)

...Roughly, the idea is that there are now and will be many competing cosmological theories, all of which are both observationally equivalent and underdetermined by the observational evidence.

© Copyright Original Source

Agreed, but this only accepts the limits of our present knowledge and some assumptions are not yet determined by observational science, and does not justify your unfortunate absolute claim that cosmological models of the origins of our universe and all possible universes cannot be falsified, because some models have failed due to new observational evidence. Of course at present there are many competing cosmological theories and models, so what?!?!?! That is how science progresses.

... I do not agree with the many physicists who think we should remain silent until a "hard science" quantum gravity theory is developed. From now on (I assume) cosmology is a metaphysical subject to be addressed by both physicists and philosophers.

I never proposed physicists should remain silent until whatever concerning philosophy, but the philosophical/theological assumptions of absolute beginnings cannot be remotely falsified nor supported by science, which is the subject at this point in the thread.

In other words, these theories are NOT testable or falsifiable. Thus they are NOT science; they are metaphysics. This is exactly what I've been suggesting. (Thanks for the quote; it supports my position, and contradicts yours!)

The quote does not support your inept absolute assertion concerning the nature of falsafiability of cosmological models, because some models have been indeed falsified and found wanting by the evolving knowledge of physics combined with math in the models. Your quickest way to make a phony false statement concerning science is make an absolute statement!

If anything you are justifying my original objection to Craig's claim concerning the support of science for his assertion of absolute beginning, and by the way your assertion in a previous post. This most definitely cannot by supported by science at present and most likely not in the near future. Neither the claim that our physical existence is finite nor infinite can be falsified by the current knowledge of science.

[seer]

Shuny stop, you are embarrassing yourself - more than usual...