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

[shunyadragon]

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

[Kbertsche]

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.

If you look up thread, you will see that it was YOU who first used the phrase "absolute beginning". I was merely responding to your assertions.

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.

Not quite. I was referring to explanations of HOW an absolute beginning to our universe could have occurred. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question.

But the question of whether or not there WAS an absolute beginning is different. I believe that science CAN tell us that there was an absolute beginning; it just can't tell us how this occurred.

OK, but it does not justify your assertion that cosmological models cannot be falsified,

I have never asserted such nonsense. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

Agreed, but this ... does not justify your unfortunate absolute claim that cosmological models of the origins of our universe and all possible universes cannot be falsified,

Again, I have not asserted this. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

The quote does not support your inept absolute assertion concerning the nature of falsafiability of cosmological models,

Again, I have not made an "inept, absolute assertion" concerning "the falsifiability of cosmological models". If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

(Note that a "cosmological model" is not the same a "theory of the origins of universes". Cosmological models primarily explain how the universe evolved since its beginning, not how it actually began in the first place.)

[shunyadragon]

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?

You are apparently objecting to one version of the cosmological models based on the 'string theory,' which you fail to address with good academic references. The models based on the 'string theory,' of course, may fail, but at present unless you can come up with a good academic reference your burial plans are premature. This one of many models. At present my favorite is the singularity forms from the collapse of black holes.

[Rational Gaze]

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




. . . 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.

In other words, you don't understand probability.

[Rational Gaze]

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.

False. A circular argument is when the conclusion is assumed in the premises. You committed this fallacy by arguing that the laws of nature could explain the laws of nature. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

[shunyadragon]

If you look up thread, you will see that it was YOU who first used the phrase "absolute beginning". I was merely responding to your assertions.

I used the phrase in the negative (There is no falsifiable theories nor hypothesis to falsify absolute beginnings], and you used it in the positive as you do in the following.

Not quite. I was referring to explanations of HOW an absolute beginning to our universe could have occurred. This is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question.

But the question of whether or not there WAS an absolute beginning is different. I believe that science CAN tell us that there was an absolute beginning; it just can't tell us how this occurred.

To remain only a metaphysical question, would preclude any support from science, except maybe to make it look like science.

This is a philosophical assumption. Science would not assume absolute beginning of anything without falsification and objective evidence. Absolute is not a word in science vocabulary, because it would indicate proof, which you acknowledge is not the purpose of science.'

To consider science as supporting Craig's claim of support you would need to be able to falsify a theory or hypothesis that the existence of an absolute beginning of our physical existence. 'Not quite' is an insufficient waffling answer. The question needs an answer: Do 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.

Based on the following statement by you. 'Not quite' is not the answer.

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.

Though, I disagree with the highlighted above as a philosophical assumption and not science. you apparently have an odd warped understanding of what is super natural.

I have never asserted such nonsense. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.


Again, I have not asserted this. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

Again, I have not made an "inept, absolute assertion" concerning "the falsifiability of cosmological models". If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

Post #53, and referenced above.

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!)

Though it is questionable and not clear what you are referring to as theories.

(Note that a "cosmological model" is not the same a "theory of the origins of universes".

. . . but by the definition provide a cosmological model may provide an origin of our universe and possible universes and the existence of possible multiverses.

Cosmological models primarily explain how the universe evolved since its beginning, not how it actually began in the first place.)

False, different cosmological models propose to explain the 'beginning in the first place,' and how the evolve.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=cosmological%20model%20definition

Cosmological model - Cosmology in Science Expand. cosmology. (kŏz-mŏl'ə-jē) The scientific study of the origin, evolution, and structure of the universe. A specific theory or model of the origin and evolution of the universe.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

With no one providing any basis for a falsifiable theory or hypothesis for any sort of absolute beginning of our universe we will move on o the next problem, this time in math concerning 'actual infinity.' Next post will introduce the problem.

Conclusion: there is no support for Craig's Cosmological argument from science. Craig may present a philosophical/theological view that may be compared to certain selective aspects of Physics and Cosmology, but no support from the perspective of science.

[shunyadragon]

In other words, you don't understand probability.

Not the case at all, I have no problem with the use of probability of math in the context of scientific investigation of objective evidence to falsify theories and hypothesis of theories and hypothesis.

Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=probability%20definition

MATHEMATICS
the extent to which an event is likely to occur, measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible.
"the area under the curve represents probability"

© Copyright Original Source

It may also be used in philosophical arguments in an attempt to justify ones argument, but without a basis in math for the falsifiable theory or hypothesis to apply this to science is futile.

In philosophy a word of caution from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/

we will follow common usage and drop the cringing scare quotes in our survey of what philosophers have taken to be the chief interpretations of probability.

© Copyright Original Source

Read further to understand the real math use of probability in science.

[Kbertsche]

I have never asserted such nonsense. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.


Again, I have not asserted this. If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

Again, I have not made an "inept, absolute assertion" concerning "the falsifiability of cosmological models". If you disagree, please present a quote to this effect.

Post #53, and referenced above.

You have failed to provide any quotes to support your claims (that I have opposed cosmological models in general). This is, of course, because I do NOT oppose mainstream cosmological models.

Rather, I maintain that the fringe models of "origins of universes" are neither testable nor falsifiable and thus are not science, by definition. They are speculative philosophy/metaphysics. Your own quotes support this.

You can try to muddy the water all you wish and blur the distinction between mainstream science and speculative metaphysics. But I think most folks here realize that you are doing what you typically do in apologetics threads. You try to push your own philosophical views as science, and rather than providing solid scientific support when asked, you make unsupported claims and try to belittle your opponents. It doesn't wash.

[The Pixie]

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

The issue here is whether something that has already existed for an infinite time can spontaneously do something new. I see nothing here to make me think that a conscious mind is required to do that (or capable of doing that).

[The Pixie]

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.

But that does imply it did not happen!

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?

We have no other examples because we have only every examined one universe. As to your other points, we do not know. That may not be very satisfying, but that does not make it any less likely. The multiverse or whatever has no obligation to make the answers accessible.

[Kbertsche]

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?

We have no other examples because we have only every examined one universe. As to your other points, we do not know. That may not be very satisfying, but that does not make it any less likely. The multiverse or whatever has no obligation to make the answers accessible.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

We see fundamental particles pop into existence for fractions of a second via quantum fluctuations. These are real particles whose presence can be detected for short periods of time. Why do we never see a small "mini-universe" with near-zero total mass-energy pop into existence? If it is believable that our 13.7 billion year old universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation, we should see small examples of similar things lasting for seconds, minutes, hours, or days. We should see detectable masses accompanied by the right amount of negative energy to make the total mass-energy of the combination equal to zero. But we don't see such things. Why not?

The claim that our 13.7 billion year old universe is the result of a quantum fluctuation seems to me to be the ultimate example of "special pleading"!

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Kbertsche;359700]You have failed to provide any quotes to support your claims (that I have opposed cosmological models in general). This is, of course, because I do NOT oppose mainstream cosmological models. [quote]

Your own statements document this.

Rather, I maintain that the fringe models of "origins of universes" are neither testable nor falsifiable and thus are not science, by definition. They are speculative philosophy/metaphysics. Your own quotes support this.

You have not differentiated what you call 'mainstream cosmological models' from 'speculative cosmological models' of the origins of the universe unless you are calling all cosmological models of the universe 'fringe models.' As far as differnt models go, all you have done is comment negatively about on model or another, and not made coherent argument.

Actually this is 'fringe argument' from the main point, which is whether an 'absolute beginning' of our physical existence can be supported by science as claimed by Craig, which you apparently agree based on your posts.

Can you present objective evidence that would support the falsification of a theory or hypothesis for an absolute beginning of our physical existence? This actually is the only real central meaningful point so far in this thread.

You can try to muddy the water all you wish and blur the distinction between mainstream science and speculative metaphysics. But I think most folks here realize that you are doing what you typically do in apologetics threads. You try to push your own philosophical views as science, and rather than providing solid scientific support when asked, you make unsupported claims and try to belittle your opponents. It doesn't wash.

First,I would let others speak for themselves.

Second it is the apologists like Craig, and of course you, that try and muddy the waters blurring the between science and speculative metaphysics. I have been proposing the clear separation, and the limits of science.

Your claim of mixing speculative metaphysics with science argument is not with me, but with scientists that develop and falsify cosmological models for the origins of universes, which you base on speculative metaphysical assumptions.

The facts are clear science at present cannot falsify either an absolute beginning nor an infinite physical existence, therefore no support for Craig's claim.

[37818]

That is an interesting claim about it being "translated as "Self-Existent.""

1. Can you provide any evidence of that?

The primary reference that supports "Self-Existent" would be Strong's Hebrew dictionary H3068. http://studybible.info/strongs/H3068

2. Do you think that in any way indicates that the cause of this universe is God? If so, how?

Only if God's identity is understood as the uncaused existence. Anything else uncaused or caused would contengent upon uncaused existence.

[Adrift]

The issue here is whether something that has already existed for an infinite time can spontaneously do something new.

I think the problem here (and in many of your previous posts) is that you somehow imagine that when people talk of a being that exists ontologically prior to universe that they mean that God existed for an infinite amount of real time. By saying that God is eternal, ontologically prior to the universe, is not to claim that God was doing nothing for an infinite length of time. Time did not yet exist until the beginning of the universe. I realize that timelessness is incredibly hard to conceive, but I think it's best if you got out of your mind that what philosophers and apologists mean by God's eternality is not that some being floated in the middle of black space for a very very long time, and then one day decided to "BOOM", create the universe. That's not at all what philosophers speculating on this issue believe.