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

[element771]

What?!?!!?

What is the issue here?

The issue is that two people can't have a fruitful discussion about a topic if one of the parties constantly misrepresents what the other party is saying.

I may not agree with Tass, SoR, and others but at least they deal with what I (and others) actually post.

[robrecht]

Still waiting . . .

I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue. You have not responded to the issue of my posts.

I'very already shown you where and how you misrepresented Kbertsche's position. He may still choose to answer my questions of him to further clarify his position and how it may have evolved.

I believe you have already tried to refine your position somewhat, but I do not recall taking issue with it, other than encouraging you to better understand and not misrepresent the views of others.

[shunyadragon]

I'very already shown you where and how you misrepresented Kbertsche's position. He may still choose to answer my questions of him to further clarify his position and how it may have evolved.

I believe you have already tried to refine your position somewhat, but I do not recall taking issue with it, other than encouraging you to better understand and not misrepresent the views of others.

Still waiting . . .

I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue concerning his posts about the falsification of theories, hypothesis and models. Where specifically have I misrepresented Kbertsche concerning this issue? You have not responded to the issue of my posts.

[Kbertsche]

You have proved nothing concerning the issues I presented. The issue of what I was addressing in all my relevant posts does not deal with the vague general statement; '. . . he considers these models and theories to be essential parts of modern science.'

The real issues are what I specifically addressed concerning how Kbertsche views the theories, hypothesis and models concerning the natural origins of our universe. I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue. You have not responded to heart of the issue.

I think I've been pretty clear: theory is an essential part of modern science, but theory is not the same as evidence. Until a theory has experimental or observational evidence to support it, it remains speculative.

On the specific question of the multiverse, here is a quote by Bernard Carr, from Universe or Multiverse? (ed. Bernard Carr, Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 14:

Source: Bernard Carr

Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so, in the sense that astronomers may never be able to observe the other universes with telescopes and particle physicists may never be able to observe the extra dimensions with their accelerators. ...

For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than with science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashow (22), Martin Gardner (23), and George Ellis (24), with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies (25) regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence. ...

© Copyright Original Source

[robrecht]

Still waiting . . .

I am not misrepresenting Kbertsche on this issue concerning his posts about the falsification of theories, hypothesis and models. Where specifically have I misrepresented Kbertsche concerning this issue? You have not responded to the issue of my posts.

Again, I already showed you. Sorry you are having difficulty here.

[rogue06]

I think I've been pretty clear: theory is an essential part of modern science, but theory is not the same as evidence. Until a theory has experimental or observational evidence to support it, it remains speculative.

On the specific question of the multiverse, here is a quote by Bernard Carr, from Universe or Multiverse? (ed. Bernard Carr, Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 14:

Source: Bernard Carr

Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so, in the sense that astronomers may never be able to observe the other universes with telescopes and particle physicists may never be able to observe the extra dimensions with their accelerators. ...

For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than with science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashow (22), Martin Gardner (23), and George Ellis (24), with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies (25) regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence. ...

© Copyright Original Source

That sounds more like a hypothesis than a scientific theory which is an explanation of the evidence.

[shunyadragon]

I think I've been pretty clear: theory is an essential part of modern science, . . .

Not the issue!

. . . but theory is not the same as evidence.

Misrepresentation. Tassman nor I never claimed a theory is evidence. If you believe so please cite either of us making such a claim.

Until a theory has experimental or observational evidence to support it, it remains speculative.

More to the heart of the issue which you have been avoiding. You are simply agreeing with Kbertsche and not demonstrating that I misrepresenting him. It is the nature of the requirement of 'scientific evidence' that is at issue here. I consider this a very dated Newtonian requirement for scientific evidence.

On the specific question of the multiverse, here is a quote by Bernard Carr, from Universe or Multiverse? (ed. Bernard Carr, Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 14:

Source: Bernard Carr

Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable. Indeed, it may always remain so, in the sense that astronomers may never be able to observe the other universes with telescopes and particle physicists may never be able to observe the extra dimensions with their accelerators. ...

For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than with science. This view has been expressed forcefully by commentators such as Sheldon Glashow (22), Martin Gardner (23), and George Ellis (24), with widely differing metaphysical outlooks. Indeed, Paul Davies (25) regards the concept of a multiverse as just as metaphysical as that of a Creator who fine-tuned a single universe for our existence. ...

© Copyright Original Source

The issue that brought this up is not in reality whether the existence of multi-verses can be falsified. I do believe the existence of multi-verses is potentially falsifiable, because some proposed models have been falsified. To make the grand all encompassing statement that all theories, hypothesis concerning the existence of multi-verses are not potentially falsifiable is a blanket magnanimous decree and unreasonable assumption particularly what may be falsifiable in the future.

I want to be specific here; The question is whether the Natural origin of our universe is supported by scientific evidence, and potentially falsified.

You have revealed that it is more a disagreement and not misrepresentation.

[Kbertsche]

theory is an essential part of modern science, but theory is not the same as evidence. Until a theory has experimental or observational evidence to support it, it remains speculative.

That sounds more like a hypothesis than a scientific theory which is an explanation of the evidence.

Good point. As I'm sure you know, the word "theory" is used in multiple senses in science. The theory of gravity does have good experimental and observational support; it is no longer a speculative theory, but is well-established. Multiverse theories have no such support, and remain speculative. (And if they make no predictions which are testable and falsifiable in principle, they should not even be considered to be scientific theories.)

[Kbertsche]

You are simply agreeing with Kbertsche

I would hope so, since I am kbertsche!

I want to be specific here; The question is whether the Natural origin of our universe is supported by scientific evidence, and potentially falsified.

You ask two separate questions here:
1) Is the concept of a natural origin of our universe supported by scientific evidence? In other words, is there currently any scientific evidence which supports the idea that our present universe came from a larger multiverse? I believe the answer is no. There are a number of different multiverse theories, but no scientific evidence for them at present.
2) Is the concept of a natural origin of our universe potentially falsifiable? This would mean a multiverse theory that is, in principle, testable and falsifiable. Depending on the details of the specific multiverse theory in question, this may or may not be possible.

[robrecht]

Not the issue!

Misrepresentation. Tassman nor I never claimed a theory is evidence. If you believe so please cite either of us making such a claim.

More to the heart of the issue which you have been avoiding. You are simply agreeing with Kbertsche and not demonstrating that I misrepresenting him. It is the nature of the requirement of 'scientific evidence' that is at issue here. I consider this a very dated Newtonian requirement for scientific evidence.

The issue that brought this up is not in reality whether the existence of multi-verses can be falsified. I do believe the existence of multi-verses is potentially falsifiable, because some proposed models have been falsified. To make the grand all encompassing statement that all theories, hypothesis concerning the existence of multi-verses are not potentially falsifiable is a blanket magnanimous decree and unreasonable assumption particularly what may be falsifiable in the future.

I want to be specific here; The question is whether the Natural origin of our universe is supported by scientific evidence, and potentially falsified.

You have revealed that it is more a disagreement and not misrepresentation.

I hope you will learn to distinguish me from Kbertsche. It is not merely a disagreement but also your failure to recognize or acknowledges an apparent evolution of Kbertsche's position, which seems to me to have occurred over the course of his discussion with Sea of Red and is most recently apparent in his most recent response to Tassman, which I quoted for you.

[shunyadragon]

I hope you will learn to distinguish me from Kbertsche. It is not merely a disagreement but also your failure to recognize or acknowledges an apparent evolution of Kbertsche's position, which seems to me to have occurred over the course of his discussion with Sea of Red and is most recently apparent in his most recent response to Tassman, which I quoted for you.

It was more of a typo. Sorry! I see no evolution Kbertsche position, and I did not misrepresent him.

[element771]

It was more of a typo. Sorry! I see no evolution Kbertsche position, and I did not misrepresent him.

I will try once more.

Did you or did you not represent my post? If not, please provide a direct quote.

If you will not even admit that you misrepresented me in a two post conversation, why would anyone buy that you didn't misrepresent Kbrtsche throughout this whole thread?

[Kbertsche]

It was more of a typo. Sorry! I see no evolution Kbertsche position, and I did not misrepresent him.

My view of scientific theory has not changed.
Shuny tends to misrepresent everyone who he disagrees with.

[robrecht]

It was more of a typo. Sorry! I see no evolution Kbertsche position, and I did not misrepresent him.

Rather than argue with me about it, why not just ask Kbertsche directly if he thinks you have correctly understood and represented well his position? That should be a fundamental step in any attempt at serious dialogue.

[shunyadragon]

That sounds more like a hypothesis than a scientific theory which is an explanation of the evidence.

This is the reason I consistently refer to theories, hypothesis and models together, because they are integral together in the process of falsification.