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

[shunyadragon]

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.

Why did you argue with me about it? You basically started this meaningless dialogue. Kbertsche can easily respond to my posts and correct me concerning 'misunderstandings.' The bottom line is we disagree concerning the nature of potential falsification of hypothesis and models relating to natural origins of our universe, and the possibility of a multi-verse greater cosmos.

[robrecht]

Why did you argue with me about it? You basically started this meaningless dialogue. Kbertsche can easily respond to my posts and correct me concerning 'misunderstandings.' The bottom line is we disagree concerning the nature of potential falsification of hypothesis and models relating to natural origins of our universe, and the possibility of a multi-verse greater cosmos.

Because I would like this to be a more interesting discussion, rather than people talking past each other, endlessly repeating themselves, and making no progress. Seems like you end up doing this a lot.

[shunyadragon]

Because I would like this to be a more interesting discussion, rather than people talking past each other, endlessly repeating themselves, and making no progress. Seems like you end up doing this a lot.

That does not answer the question, and represents a one sided biased view of the discussion by a hostile witness.

[robrecht]

That does not answer the question and represent a one sided biased view of the discussion.

What question do you think I did not answer?

[shunyadragon]

What question do you think I did not answer?

Why you entered the discussion between Kbertsche and I with an accusation that I misrepresented Kbertsche. This is not remotely a way to resolve a disagreement, and I have been very clear and specific as to the nature of the disagreement.

[robrecht]

Why you entered the discussion between Kbertsche and I with an accusation that I misrepresented Kbertsche. This is not remotely a way to resolve a disagreement, and I have been very clear and specific as to the nature of the disagreement.

Because the discussion is stalled when you persist in misrepresenting the position of one (or more) of the participants and, like I said, I would like this to be a more interesting discussion, not one which is stalled. Don't think you and Kbertsche areally the only participants in this discussion.

[JimL]

OK, but common sense is not actual evidence.

Well, I think it is a kind of evidence, its the only evidence we have of the way things work. Of course, in the case of our universe, we can't observe its birth, or its cause, its mother, so to speak, so there is no proof that its birth is natural, we can't prove that it wasn't born of nothing within nothing, but, unlike the former conclusion, there is no evidence at all to support that latter conclusion. Ex Nihilo nihil fit!

[Tassman]

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.

[MaxVel]

Not to crow or anything, but I pretty much called it on page 4 of this thread...

And there it is. Thread winner.

My scientific observations have shown that this thread is following a pattern typical of many Shunyadragon threads.

He posts a compliant about some 'apologetic argument' and how wrong he thinks it is

He gets corrected about his misunderstandings of the argument in the first few posts

He complains about how it's 'not scientific' and cites some amateur-level references, which only reinforce his misunderstandings, and which he doesn't really grasp anyway - but at least they're 'science'!

Other posters begin an intelligent discussion about the real issues involved. At least some of them know what they're talking about, unlike Shunya.

Shunya posts on about how people are 'ignoring the science', refusing to address his misapprehensions, and 'Bob, Duck, and Weave' make an appearance

Other posters continue their discussion, and learn something new and worthwhile, just not from Shunya.

Shunya, if your discussion 'style' is this predictable (based on observations, then a hypothesis, and refining that based on more observations... you know, 'science'), and this fruitless, maybe you should take some of Robrecht's excellent advice in the last few pages.... How about it?

[shunyadragon]

Because the discussion is stalled when you persist in misrepresenting the position of one (or more) of the participants and, . . .

You failed to demonstrate any form of misrepresentation of Kbertsche's position, and the bottom line is you confirmed that it is a disagreement on the nature of 'scientific evidence' and falsification hypothesis and models for the natural origins of our universe and the possible existence of multi-verses.

like I said, I would like this to be a more interesting discussion, not one which is stalled. Don't think you and Kbertsche are really the only participants in this discussion.

That is not the issue, accusing me of misrepresenting others, when there is no misrepresentation is an issue.

Nothing has changed. Kbertsche asserts that all hypothesis and cosmological models for the natural origins and possible existence of multi-verses are speculative metaphysics and not based on 'scientific evidence.'

Kebertsche and others also asserted that 'scientific evidence' supports WLC's Kalam argument, which I disagree, because the assumption that the 'universe has a beginning' is to simplistic and vague, and appeals to an 'appeal to ignorance' concerning what is claimed that is unknown and not falsifiable concerning natural origins. WLC's argument is clearly based on the philosophical Creation 'ex nihilo,' which cannot be supported by 'scientific evidence.' It was asserted by Kbertsche that Creation 'ex nihilo' was in the conclusion, which does not compute, because Creation 'ex nihilo' is clearly built in the assumption that the 'universe has a beginning.'

I propose that these hypothesis and models are potentially falsifiable based on our knowledge of Quantum Physics. Some have been found false, and discarded in the process. I believe that our increasing knowledge of Quantum Physics is the 'scientific evidence' for the potential falsification of natural origins and possible multi-verses.

The false claim by Kbertsche that Tassman and I consider theories as evidence is indeed misrepresentation, and cannot be confirmed by our posts. The problem of misrepresentation is clearly on Kbertsche and others concerning Tassman and my views.

[robrecht]

You failed to demonstrate any form of misrepresentation of Kbertsche's position, and the bottom line is you confirmed that it is a disagreement on the nature of 'scientific evidence' and falsification hypothesis and models for the natural origins of our universe and the possible existence of multi-verses.



That is not the issue, accusing me of misrepresenting others, when there is no misrepresentation is an issue.

Nothing has changed. Kbertsche asserts that all hypothesis and cosmological models for the natural origins and possible existence of multi-verses are speculative metaphysics and not based on 'scientific evidence.'

Kebertsche and others also asserted that 'scientific evidence' supports WLC's Kalam argument, which I disagree, because the assumption that the 'universe has a beginning' is to simplistic and vague, and appeals to an 'appeal to ignorance' concerning what is claimed that is unknown and not falsifiable concerning natural origins. WLC's argument is clearly based on the philosophical Creation 'ex nihilo,' which cannot be supported by 'scientific evidence.' It was asserted by Kbertsche that Creation 'ex nihilo' was in the conclusion, which does not compute, because Creation 'ex nihilo' is clearly built in the assumption that the 'universe has a beginning.'

I propose that these hypothesis and models are potentially falsifiable based on our knowledge of Quantum Physics. Some have been found false, and discarded in the process. I believe that our increasing knowledge of Quantum Physics is the 'scientific evidence' for the potential falsification of natural origins and possible multi-verses.

The false claim by Kbertsche that Tassman and I consider theories as evidence is indeed misrepresentation, and cannot be confirmed by our posts. The problem of misrepresentation is clearly on Kbertsche and others concerning Tassman and my views.

Please stop arguing with me and just ask Kbertsche if he thinks you have well represented his position.

[shunyadragon]

Please stop arguing with me and just ask Kbertsche if he thinks you have well represented his position.

You are the one who entered the argument with a false accusation of misrepresentation, and you persist in this false accusation.

There are abundant posts that detail my position and I need not ask Kbertsche respond. He is free to respond as he chooses.

The response is justified if you choose to enter the discussion, because you persist in being a part of the misrepresentation of my posts. As you said Kbertsche and I are not the only ones here in the discussion. Everyone including Kbertsche can read this summary and respond if they choose, and again I do not need to ask.

[MaxVel]

You are the one who entered the argument with a false accusation of misrepresentation, and you persist in this false accusation.

There are abundant posts that detail my position and I need not ask Kbertsche respond. He is free to respond as he chooses.

The response is justified if you choose to enter the discussion, because you persist in being a part of the misrepresentation of my posts. As you said Kbertsche and I are not the only ones here in the discussion. Everyone including Kbertsche can read this summary and respond if they choose, and again I do not need to ask.

When Tassman can have a more productive discussion than you, you really ought to rethink your approach. You're just digging your heels in because posters smarter and better informed than you have shown you up, for the umpteenth time. Hubris is really your weakness, Shunya. You're so convinced that Christians are wrong about everything that you can't accept it when they are right.

[robrecht]

You are the one who entered the argument with a false accusation of misrepresentation, and you persist in this false accusation.

There are abundant posts that detail my position and I need not ask Kbertsche respond. He is free to respond as he chooses.

The response is justified if you choose to enter the discussion, because you persist in being a part of the misrepresentation of my posts. As you said Kbertsche and I are not the only ones here in the discussion. Everyone including Kbertsche can read this summary and respond if they choose, and again I do not need to ask.

Kbertsche has already posted here about your misrepresentation, as has element771, and now I have as well. I'm just encouraging you to better engage the positions of others.

[element771]

Kbertsche has already posted here about your misrepresentation, as has element771, and now I have as well. I'm just encouraging you to better engage the positions of others.

I agree 100%.

Honestly, I joke around about your pride being boundless and you being the personification of jello when it comes to arguing issues; however, this is different.

Until now, I just assumed that you were passionate and misguided in a lot of your opinions. You usually hide behind a deluge of text and red herrings while misrepresenting what people type. Once again, I thought that it may be a mistake due to how you argue. BUT, now that I see how you misrepresented what I said drastically over two / three posts...I am now convinced that this is on purpose. You are not interested in honest and fruitful dialogue. You are come here because you want to feel morally and intellectually superior to Christians. The problem is that you aren't.

Some of us do for a living what you do as a hobby. Frankly, to claim that you know more than us about how science works is laughable.

A consequence of this is that I now see you as someone who is dishonest and not someone who is interested in a fruitful discussion.