Presuppositional Apolgetic

[shunyadragon]

No, it's not problematic. That is the general concensus view of the age of the universe by secular scientists. I only showed you what you needed to see. lol. Whether you accept this or not is up to you.

No it is not the estimate age of the universe as we know it is not the absolute beginning of anything but the space/time of our universe. If you accept the beginning of space/time of our universe it is based on that beginning originating from a Quantum World without space and time.

That's fine. What it really comes down to for me though is that the structure of the universe had a beginning in all of the theories. Even if the initial singularity is said to be it without a cause, which is certainly not proven.

Back to your basic science, science does not prove anything.

What that singularity did was still caused even if it did occurred here or somewhere else. So that doesn't seem to be an issue for me. Anything and anywhere outside of that initial singularity is outside this known universe and known physics. And since it is outside of known physics and this universe.. to me this propose in some form or another..could well be God Himself.

No, the Quantum world that the singularity would exist in is not outside known physics and cosmology. The concept that the universe began as a singularity is based on a Quantum World that the singularity would exist in.

Scientists don't claim that they know. You're right. They are only proposing theory. I doubt you know what theory is.

Which particular theory are you referring to?

I agree. Scientists have admited they do not know. They use cosmology/science to explain, but honest scientists admit that they have no naturalistic to prove for it. They call it a singularity, which by definition, is an event that seems to have taken place without any natural explanation. It is by definition "supernatural" imo. A First cause has to account for the "creation of time, space, matter" which the materialist scientists cannot allow for this possibility. So they ultimately have no answer. But theists do.

Again, again and again, science does not prove anything. Please, present something other than an anecdotal claim of faith that would demonstrate reasonable that theists actual 'know' anything beyond our physical world.

I agree. That still doesn't help their argument.

I am not certain as to what you agree to, because so far you have not shown any basic knowledge concerning how science works in the real world.

Your case is simply based on blind anecdotal faith that 2000+ year old scripture is literally true avoiding any logical knowledge of science nor how it functions.

Science doesn't try to prove things because this is impossible to do (outside of mathematics/logic, that is). Nothing empirical can be proven. I cannot prove you are real. After all you may be a bot.

Nonsense. Please make sense concerning how scientific methods actually function in the real world, and than maybe we can have a dialogue.

[AkByR64]

No it is not the estimate age of the universe as we know it is not the absolute beginning of anything but the space/time of our universe.

It is the estimate age of the universe..at least in this universe it is.

If you accept the beginning of space/time of our universe it is based on that beginning originating from a Quantum World without space and time.

But the point is you are still claiming something outside this known universe, outside of this known space and time. I still say that's no different than saying God did it. God is without space and time.

Of course the cause had to be without space and time because there was no space and time prior to the beginning of anything. Claiming some quantum excuse for why this really isn't a 'beginning of space and time" doesn't really negate a beginning, because there was a time when atoms didn't exist and after that they did. So that is effectively a beginning. The quantum world of dynamics and mechanics is about the nature of the universe prior to the big bang. Multiple universes are a speculation of the nature prior to this. It's all tied together. And even there it still have a beginning. So whether or not the singularity occur here or somewhere else (there are multiple singularities) this still raise the issue of "what cause that singularity"? So if this singularity did anything.. it had a beginning... inside the universe or not..because that singularity is still the grand total of all that exists.

Back to your basic science, science does not prove anything.

Right.

No, the Quantum world that the singularity would exist in is not outside known physics and cosmology. The concept that the universe began as a singularity is based on a Quantum World that the singularity would exist in.

The singularity is an event that has no naturalistic explanation my friend. Is it still the grand total of all that exist whether it occur here or not. Unless you want to claim is that time itself doesn't exist..if you we look back in time..structures within this universe begin to disappear.. back to atoms and particles.. and then the singularity itself.

Which particular theory are you referring to?

Everything. Everything we know is based on theories only.

Again, again and again, science does not prove anything. Please, present something other than an anecdotal claim of faith that would demonstrate reasonable that theists actual 'know' anything beyond our physical world.

If we don't now anything beyond our physical world then how do you explain scientists who postulate M-theory? Multiple universes are a speculation of the nature PRIOR to the BIG bang and you claimed we can't know. So if we can't know, how can they KNOW since you postulated we cannot KNOW anything before the universe. I gave rebuttal to this premise with opposite proposition.

I am not certain as to what you agree to, because so far you have not shown any basic knowledge concerning how science works in the real world.

Your case is simply based on blind anecdotal faith that 2000+ year old scripture is literally true avoiding any logical knowledge of science nor how it functions.

False accusation. Nowhere did I use 2000+ year old scripture to prove my argument anywhere in the thread. I simply use science and it's theories to go against their own playing field.

Did you know that if M-theory was true it only means that was space before space? Because M-theory is actually an objection to the big bang theory itself. Not God. It's like which came first the chicken or egg and they have no answer.

Nonsense. Please make sense concerning how scientific methods actually function in the real world, and than maybe we can have a dialogue.

How is it nonsense? It's impossible to achieve proof through empiricism because things always change. What may be true today may not be next year. Science looks to facts to verify or disprove theories, which is why theories are much more powerful and interesting than proof. Proof, however, is a little harder.

[shunyadragon]

It is the estimate age of the universe..at least in this universe it is.

The estimate is for the beginning of expansion of our universe only, nothing more.

But the point is you are still claiming something outside this known universe, outside of this known space and time. I still say that's no different than saying God did it. God is without space and time.

The difference is the scientific theories are based on objective evidence and scientific methods. Saying God did it is based on anecdotal conjecture, and faith.

Of course the cause had to be without space and time because there was no space and time prior to the beginning of anything. Claiming some quantum excuse for why this really isn't a 'beginning of space and time" doesn't really negate a beginning, because there was a time when atoms didn't exist and after that they did. So that is effectively a beginning. The quantum world of dynamics and mechanics is about the nature of the universe prior to the big bang. Multiple universes are a speculation of the nature prior to this. It's all tied together. And even there it still have a beginning. So whether or not the singularity occur here or somewhere else (there are multiple singularities) this still raise the issue of "what cause that singularity"? So if this singularity did anything.. it had a beginning... inside the universe or not..because that singularity is still the grand total of all that exists.

Yes, by the objective evidence and the theories, beginnings are negated. There is no evidence for absolute beginnings.

If the theories involving the Big Bang, Singularities, M-theory, beginnings of space/time are correct, they are based on the same theories as the existence of the Quantum Gravity and Quantum World where space/time does not exist.

The singularity is an event that has no naturalistic explanation my friend. Is it still the grand total of all that exist whether it occurred here or not. Unless you want to claim is that time itself doesn't exist..if you we look back in time..structures within this universe begin to disappear.. back to atoms and particles.. and then the singularity itself.

The singularity is the product of theories with Naturalist explanation. It is not postulated as the grand total of all that exists in any objective scientific theory. This merely an assumption on your part, and nothing to do with the scientific theories that propose that our universe began as a singularity. Again ALL the theories that propose, the Big Bang, the singularity, M-theory are based on the theories of the existence of Quantum Gravity and a Quantum world where the singularity formed. You cannot be selective about science to justify your agenda of the necessity of a natural beginning.

Everything. Everything we know is based on theories only.

Absolutely FALSE. Everything we know is based on physical evidence and methodological naturalism, and the falsification of theories. Theories are based on the evidence.

If we don't now anything beyond our physical world then how do you explain scientists who postulate M-theory? Multiple universes are a speculation of the nature PRIOR to the BIG bang and you claimed we can't know. So if we can't know, how can they KNOW since you postulated we cannot KNOW anything before the universe. I gave rebuttal to this premise with opposite proposition.

No rebuttal provided, because we have not communicated on the basics of how science works.

Science does not work by 'knowing nor proving things.' The basic methods of science function by falsification of theories and propositions based on objective evidence. The basics of the theories involving the Big Bang, M theory, beginnings of all possible universes including our own beginning in space/time are dependent on the existence of a Quantum world where there is no space/time where the singularity forms.

There of course is no proof, nor will there ever be, because science does not prove anything.

False accusation. Nowhere did I use 2000+ year old scripture to prove my argument anywhere in the thread. I simply use science and it's theories to go against their own playing field.

No, but your combative, negative, and wrong headed view of science is grounded in your presuppositional apologetic world view which is the basis of this thread.

Did you know that if M-theory was true it only means that was space before space? Because M-theory is actually an objection to the big bang theory itself. Not God. It's like which came first the chicken or egg and they have no answer.

Scientific theories and methodological naturalism do not address the God(s) issue either way. This is an important assumption if our dialogue is to be productive.

M-theory is not an objection to the Big Bang, and it is indifferent to whether the Big Bang occurred or not. M-theory is a proposed theory for explain the nature of the Quantum Gravity in the Quantum World, and the nature of the basic particles of matter.

As far as the chicken and the egg?, no one has the answer. Science does not try to ask nor answer the question.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

In addition to being an idea of considerable theoretical interest, M-theory provides a framework for constructing models of real world physics that combine general relativity with the standard model of particle physics. Phenomenology is the branch of theoretical physics in which physicists construct realistic models of nature from more abstract theoretical ideas. String phenomenology is the part of string theory that attempts to construct realistic models of particle physics based on string and M-theory.

Typically, such models are based on the idea of compactification.[l] Starting with the ten- or eleven-dimensional spacetime of string or M-theory, physicists postulate a shape for the extra dimensions. By choosing this shape appropriately, they can construct models roughly similar to the standard model of particle physics, together with additional undiscovered particles.[64] One popular way of deriving realistic physics from string theory is to start with the heterotic theory in ten dimensions and assume that the six extra dimensions of spacetime are shaped like a six-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold. This is a special kind of geometric object named after mathematicians Eugenio Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau.[65] Calabi–Yau manifolds offer many ways of extracting realistic physics from string theory. Other similar methods can be used to construct realistic models of our four-dimensional world based on M-theory.

Partly because of theoretical and mathematical difficulties and partly because of the extremely high energies needed to test these theories experimentally, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature. This has led some in the community to criticize these approaches to unification and question the value of continued research on these problems.

© Copyright Original Source

How is it nonsense? It's impossible to achieve proof through empiricism because things always change. What may be true today may not be next year. Science looks to facts to verify or disprove theories, which is why theories are much more powerful and interesting than proof. Proof, however, is a little harder.

Back to basics again and again, Science does not prove theories. Science does not prove anything. No science does not verify nor disprove theories.

[AkByR64]

The estimate is for the beginning of expansion of our universe only, nothing more.

Right. Since we can't know anything beyond this universe we cannot possibly say it's true out there. It is only true to this universe. It's a separate issue and independent premise.

The difference is the scientific theories are based on objective evidence and scientific methods. Saying God did it is based on anecdotal conjecture, and faith.

It is a logical construct from the scientific evidence. You can call it M-theory, I call it God. M-theory, all propose origin of the universe that lie outside of this known universe, laws, space and time. And because you are proposing things outside of this known universe now.. to me that is virtually indistinguishable from the concept of a God. Proposing M-theory means "space" was already there, and that it was just a larger context that cause this universe to begin in our time and space, which beg the question "what cause that universe to began"? If you are saying there was space before space you are contradicting yourself. It all literally boils down to a single singularity. Why make is to complicated?

Yes, by the objective evidence and the theories, beginnings are negated. There is no evidence for absolute beginnings.

What evidence is there that the beginnings are negated? Scientists theorize something big happened ...long time ago.. called the big bang when all the matter was compressed into a very tiny dot.. so tiny that it expanded from this singularity. Claiming some quantum excuse for why that really isn't a 'beginning' is a poor excuse.. because there was still a time when there was nothing..and then a time when there was something. Something happened and an enormous release of energy..no pre big bang speculation can change that fact.

The singularity is the product of theories with Naturalist explanation. It is not postulated as the grand total of all that exists in any objective scientific theory. This merely an assumption on your part, and nothing to do with the scientific theories that propose that our universe began as a singularity. Again ALL the theories that propose, the Big Bang, the singularity, M-theory are based on the theories of the existence of Quantum Gravity and a Quantum world where the singularity formed. You cannot be selective about science to justify your agenda of the necessity of a natural beginning.

All naturalistic/material explanations are bound inside space and time context. You can't have material matter without space. Matter, space, time all came into being at the beginning instant.

Absolutely FALSE. Everything we know is based on physical evidence and methodological naturalism, and the falsification of theories. Theories are based on the evidence.

First of all that's not true. All knowledge does not necessary arrived using the scientific method this way. If it were so that would contradict so many things in our personal life experiences.

Second, honest scientists would admit nothing is absolutely certain. Science does pursues truth the best it can, but these are truth are crystallise as theories. Example: We observe the fact that hot water becomes a gas, and we explain it with the theory of evaporation. Are we certain? No we are not. There is always something out there that contradict our current understanding of things. This is why science is always changing.

Brian Cox once said that the greatest thing we have learned through science, is what we have yet to learn.

No rebuttal provided, because we have not communicated on the basics of how science works.

Well you first said that science doesn't know prior to this universe, so I rebutted this by asking you how do you/scientists know this if you said we can't know it? If we can't think or know outside of this universe then how do they know since you claim we cannot know. Your comeback answer was that "Science doesn't try to prove things" - which is what I said at first. You said one thing and change it to mean another thing.. seems like you contradict yourself way too much.

Science does not work by 'knowing nor proving things.' The basic methods of science function by falsification of theories and propositions based on objective evidence. The basics of the theories involving the Big Bang, M theory, beginnings of all possible universes including our own beginning in space/time are dependent on the existence of a Quantum world where there is no space/time where the singularity forms.

There of course is no proof, nor will there ever be, because science does not prove anything.

Exactly. I used the word proof because you first used it. And that's what I've been telling you. So thank you for agreeing with me in the first place.

From where this singularity formed would be something outside of our time and space because it is the formation of the universe out of nothing. So whatever cause it had to transcend the universe. How can something inside of space or time caused space time to come into being, when there was no space or time prior? Doesn't make sense to me when once come to think of it.

No, but your combative, negative, and wrong headed view of science is grounded in your presuppositional apologetic world view which is the basis of this thread.

That's not true. I even allowed you to go as far as appeal to M-theory and all the possible theories and still you haven't give an answer. lol. Granted, they still have a beginning in all the theories. As mention earlier unless you want to claim is that time itself doesn't exist..if you go back in time..the structures within this universe begin to disappear... back to atoms and subatomic particles and..then,...the singularity itself. The singularity was not cause here.. it's an external cause..So unless you claim is that this entire concept is and illusion and the singularity never expanded at all... then you are absurd. I mean that's the only way you can make sense in your worldview since you do not believe in an absolute beginning.

Scientific theories and methodological naturalism do not address the God(s) issue either way. This is an important assumption if our dialogue is to be productive.

I even conceded all the theories you brought forth and will allow you to posit everything you wanted to beside a god. Doesn't matter to me. Nowhere does God is assume on my part in any of the premise.

M-theory is not an objection to the Big Bang, and it is indifferent to whether the Big Bang occurred or not. M-theory is a proposed theory for explain the nature of the Quantum Gravity in the Quantum World, and the nature of the basic particles of matter.

Yes, I think it is. The big bang is the absolute beginning of space and time. You can't have it both ways. The "space" was already here before our space is begging the question.

As far as the chicken and the egg?, no one has the answer. Science does not try to ask nor answer the question.

[cite=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory]In addition to being an idea of considerable theoretical interest, M-theory provides a framework for constructing models of real world physics that combine general relativity with the standard model of particle physics. Phenomenology is the branch of theoretical physics in which physicists construct realistic models of nature from more abstract theoretical ideas. String phenomenology is the part of string theory that attempts to construct realistic models of particle physics based on string and M-theory.

Typically, such models are based on the idea of compactification.[l] Starting with the ten- or eleven-dimensional spacetime of string or M-theory, physicists postulate a shape for the extra dimensions. By choosing this shape appropriately, they can construct models roughly similar to the standard model of particle physics, together with additional undiscovered particles.[64] One popular way of deriving realistic physics from string theory is to start with the heterotic theory in ten dimensions and assume that the six extra dimensions of spacetime are shaped like a six-dimensional Calabi–Yau manifold. This is a special kind of geometric object named after mathematicians Eugenio Calabi and Shing-Tung Yau.[65] Calabi–Yau manifolds offer many ways of extracting realistic physics from string theory. Other similar methods can be used to construct realistic models of our four-dimensional world based on M-theory.

Partly because of theoretical and mathematical difficulties and partly because of the extremely high energies needed to test these theories experimentally, there is so far no experimental evidence that would unambiguously point to any of these models being a correct fundamental description of nature. This has led some in the community to criticize these approaches to unification and question the value of continued research on these problems.

It's a contradiction. Scientists are stuck. They get stuck at the same place we all get stuck. We are just advanced enough to call it "God", they are not.

Back to basics again and again, Science does not prove theories. Science does not prove anything. No science does not verify nor disprove theories.

That's what I said.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

But anyway, my special interest is in Presuppositional Apologetic. I have try to defend it a few times but still suck at it.

Perhaps I missed it in the earlier pages of the thread, but what is your intended goal with Presuppositional Apologetics? Are you looking for an apologetic which is well-suited for Evangelism? If so, as an atheist, I will tell you that the Presuppositional Apologetic is the absolute worst tactic you can take with an unbeliever. It attempts to take the position which it is ostensibly defending as an axiom. Generally, the axioms in any argument or system of logic are supposed to be things with which people almost universally agree. It is not even universally agreed amongst Christians that the God of the Bible is a necessary prerequisite to knowledge, let alone amongst non-Christians; nor is it universally agreed amongst theists that deity is necessary for the existence of knowledge, let alone amongst non-theists.

In short, if your goal is Evangelism, the Presuppositional Apologetic is almost entirely ineffective, and often quite counterproductive.

Yes, I think it is. The big bang is the absolute beginning of space and time. You can't have it both ways. The "space" was already here before our space is begging the question.

This is a very common misconception amongst those who support the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Firstly, it is not true that the Big Bang demarcates an absolute beginning for space-time. There are numerous cosmological models in which this is not the case, including quite a number of models in which Time is past-infinite.

However, more importantly, if it is correct that the Big Bang marks an absolute beginning for space-time, then the Cosmological Argument fails, anyway. If Time is past-finite with a boundary at the Big Bang, then the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" is entirely nonsensical. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang," in that case. There would literally never have been a state in which the universe did not exist, if the Big Bang marks the past-boundary for Time.

[shunyadragon]

Right. Since we can't know anything beyond this universe we cannot possibly say it's true out there. It is only true to this universe. It's a separate issue and independent premise.

No it is one issue, science, which you selectively use to justify your belief.

You cannot selectively separate issues in science to justify your own belief. You believe there is an absolute beginning based on your presuppositional apologetics. Such assumptions do not relate to science. Do not misuse science to justify a presuppositional apologetic worldview.

It is a logical construct from the scientific evidence. You can call it M-theory, I call it God. M-theory, all propose origin of the universe that lie outside of this known universe, laws, space and time. And because you are proposing things outside of this known universe now..

Your making a theological argument based on false assumptions. M-theory is indifferent as to whether God exists or not.

to me that is virtually indistinguishable from the concept of a God. Proposing M-theory means "space" was already there, and that it was just a larger context that cause this universe to begin in our time and space, which beg the question "what cause that universe to began"?

Misusing 'begging the question.'

No, proposing M-theory DOES NOT mean "space" was already there. We have not yet communicated concerning what science proposes or means.

If you are saying there was space before space you are contradicting yourself. It all literally boils down to a single singularity. Why make is to complicated?

. . . because I did not say that. You are making it complicated, by assuming anything in science claims 'space' can exist outside the time/space. We are not yet back to the basics of what science actually functions in physics and cosmology.

What evidence is there that the beginnings are negated? Scientists theorize something big happened ...long time ago.. called the big bang when all the matter was compressed into a very tiny dot.. so tiny that it expanded from this singularity. Claiming some quantum excuse for why that really isn't a 'beginning' is a poor excuse.. because there was still a time when there was nothing..and then a time when there was something. Something happened and an enormous release of energy..no pre big bang speculation can change that fact.

The negation of absolute beginnings has nothing to do with the Big Bang. In fact some theories propose what is called the Big Bang is not a beginning. The singularity is a temporal beginning and not an absolute beginning. There is no evidence of absolute beginnings of anything.

No pre-bang speculation of absolute beginnings have any basis in science.

All naturalistic/material explanations are bound inside space and time context.

No they are not. They can exist in the Quantum world, but not as matter and energy in a space time continuum.

You can't have material matter without space. Matter, space, time all came into being at the beginning instant.

If the event actually occurred, not all theories propose this, matter and energy has been demonstrated to exist in Quantum forms in a Quantum world.

First of all that's not true. All knowledge does not necessary arrived using the scientific method this way. If it were so that would contradict so many things in our personal life experiences.

Nonsense, I never said all knowledge is arrived by using scientific methods. How can scientific methods be used in a different way?

Second, honest scientists would admit nothing is absolutely certain.

Scientists have never claimed anything with absolute certainty. That ball is in your court.

Science does pursues truth the best it can, . . .

Science does not pursue truth.

. . . but these are truth are crystallise as theories.

Truths nor theories crystalize in science.

Example: We observe the fact that hot water becomes a gas, and we explain it with the theory of evaporation. Are we certain? No we are not. There is always something out there that contradict our current understanding of things. This is why science is always changing.

Trivial Newtonian physics. Does not address the issues or problems here.

Brian Cox once said that the greatest thing we have learned through science, is what we have yet to learn.

True, but so what!?!?!?



[quote[ Well you first said that science doesn't know prior to this universe, so I rebutted this by asking you how do you/scientists know this if you said we can't know it? If we can't think or know outside of this universe then how do they know since you claim we cannot know. Your comeback answer was that "Science doesn't try to prove things" - which is what I said at first. You said one thing and change it to mean another thing.. seems like you contradict yourself way too much.

No contradiction. It is not what you said in the beginning. Again and again, we need to get back to the basics of science and represent science correctly if our dialogue can continue. Your running around in circles with one foot nailed to the floor.

Exactly. I used the word proof because you first used it. And that's what I've been telling you. So thank you for agreeing with me in the first place.

False. NOT in the way your using it. In terms of proof, science does not prove anything.

From where this singularity formed would be something outside of our time and space . . .

. . . but not outside physics and cosmology.

. . . because it is the formation of the universe out of nothing.

Theological speculation, not science.

So whatever cause it had to transcend the universe. How can something inside of space or time caused space time to come into being, when there was no space or time prior? Doesn't make sense to me when once come to think of it.



That's not true. I even allowed you to go as far as appeal to M-theory and all the possible theories and still you haven't give an answer. lol.

The Quantum world.

Granted, they still have a beginning in all the theories. As mention earlier unless you want to claim is that time itself doesn't exist..if you go back in time..the structures within this universe begin to disappear... back to atoms and subatomic particles and..then,...the singularity itself. The singularity was not cause here.. it's an external cause..So unless you claim is that this entire concept is and illusion and the singularity never expanded at all... then you are absurd. I mean that's the only way you can make sense in your worldview since you do not believe in an absolute beginning.

The above remains theological speculation, not science. It is not an issue what I believe. Belief represents anecdotal speculation.

To accept the science that space/time had a beginning in terms of physics and cosmology, you need to accept the whole of physics and cosmology concerning the theories concerning the Quantum World. You unethically are accepting parts of scientific theories to justify your world view.

I even conceded all the theories you brought forth and will allow you to posit everything you wanted to beside a god. Doesn't matter to me. Nowhere does God is assume on my part in any of the premise.

I am not nor every did posit anything concerning the existence nor non-existence of god(s).

Yes, I think it is. The big bang is the absolute beginning of space and time.

Then your assumption is theological, not scientific.

You can't have it both ways. The "space" was already here before our space is begging the question.

Not having anything both ways. Your misusing 'begging the question.'

It's a contradiction. Scientists are stuck. They get stuck at the same place we all get stuck. We are just advanced enough to call it "God", they are not.

No it is not a contradiction, and scientist are not 'stuck.'. You are misrepresenting or maybe misunderstanding M-theory. In science M-theory is indifferent as to whether God exists or not. You fail to address science, theories as a whole, and not selectively hold to parts of science to justify your world view.

That's what I said.

No it is not.

[AkByR64]

No contradiction. It is not what you said in the beginning. Again and again, we need to get back to the basics of science and represent science correctly if our dialogue can continue. Your running around in circles with one foot nailed to the floor.

Your argument is basically goes like this:

You: I don't know. Science doesn't know.
Me: Science is not in the business of knowing.
You: You're wrong, because science does not know.

Science is based on theories, but so long as you understand that a theory is an explanation that has a wealth of evidence to support it then that's good enough. I don't think you understand this concept well enough that's why you are having a hard time thus you keep saying "We don't know" multiple times as if somehow that is proof. It isn't. Calling an idea a 'theory' is not a criticism, it's the highest academic compliment.

False. NOT in the way your using it. In terms of proof, science does not prove anything.

Then stop saying that science doesn't know.

. . . but not outside physics and cosmology.

The singularity is the finite point where everything originated from. A tiny dot where all matter are compressed. If it did anything, it had a beginning outside of space and time. If you are saying it's not outside physics and cosmology then you are literally contradicting yourself.

Theological speculation, not science.

ha ha.. the answer isn't suppoose to be a science one.. that is why I never claim that it was. It is a logical deduction. A claim that is deduce from sound logic, is no longer a speculation...its a proof! Whatever begin to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause! And the cause had to transcend time and space which can only fit a time-less, space-less personal being.

The Quantum world.

Quantum where though? There was no space. Space itself expanded out of the singularity.

The above remains theological speculation, not science. It is not an issue what I believe. Belief represents anecdotal speculation.

Science can take a hike!

To accept the science that space/time had a beginning in terms of physics and cosmology, you need to accept the whole of physics and cosmology concerning the theories concerning the Quantum World. You unethically are accepting parts of scientific theories to justify your world view.

Yeah. What it really comes down to for me is that the structures of the universe.. from stars to galaxies...had a beginning in any of the theories...all the way down to subatomic particles. They had a beginning..in all the theories. Any speculative theories propose in some form or another outside of known universe and laws..could well be God Himself.

I am not nor every did posit anything concerning the existence nor non-existence of god(s).

What else do you have to offer?

Then your assumption is theological, not scientific.

WRONG. The big bang theory states it had a beginning. That's according to science, not theology.

Not having anything both ways. Your misusing 'begging the question.'

No it is not a contradiction, and scientist are not 'stuck.'. You are misrepresenting or maybe misunderstanding M-theory. In science M-theory is indifferent as to whether God exists or not. You fail to address science, theories as a whole, and not selectively hold to parts of science to justify your world view.

Ok well then you are stuck to explain how the universe appeared. In reality, by your own argument, the big bang is not a beginning but only a step in the natural movement of space and in time. But on the other hand, at the same time, they say the big bang was the absolute beginning. You can't have it both ways. So the materialist have no answer how all this started. Some says that positing a deity is too simplistic and we ask, in return, "have you got any better explanation?" to which they have no answer. The big bang does not posit a sudden explosion without a cause. The theory has an explanation for the cause. The explanation presupposes the existence of transcendent beyond the universe, space and time.

[shunyadragon]

Your argument is basically goes like this:

You: I don't know. Science doesn't know.
Me: Science is not in the business of knowing.
You: You're wrong, because science does not know.

No, that is not the argument.

Science is based on theories, but so long as you understand that a theory is an explanation that has a wealth of evidence to support it then that's good enough. I don't think you understand this concept well enough that's why you are having a hard time thus you keep saying "We don't know" multiple times as if somehow that is proof.

No science is not based on theories. Science is based scientific methods, objective evidence, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis. You are not comprehending the meaning of science not knowing. This concept of knowing would be believing in absolutes. Science does not deal in absolutes nor proofs.

It isn't. Calling an idea a 'theory' is not a criticism, it's the highest academic compliment.

I do not take your use of theory as a complement. I consider your use of 'theory' as misleading and misrepresenting science.

Then stop saying that science doesn't know.

Fortunately science does not claim to know things in any absolute sense. No one should make that claim.

The singularity is the finite point where everything originated from. A tiny dot where all matter are compressed. If it did anything, it had a beginning outside of space and time. If you are saying it's not outside physics and cosmology then you are literally contradicting yourself.

No, you are misrepresenting the physics and cosmology for your own agenda.

Theological speculation, not science.

ha ha.. the answer isn't suppoose to be a science one.. that is why I never claim that it was. It is a logical deduction. A claim that is deduce from sound logic, is no longer a speculation...its a proof! Whatever begin to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause! And the cause had to transcend time and space which can only fit a time-less, space-less personal being.

Your logical deduction is begging the question' based on a religious agenda. The above confirms this.

Quantum where though? There was no space. Space itself expanded out of the singularity.

Still misrepresenting science. There is no scientific claim that space existed before the big bang.

Science can take a hike!

Probably the first sincere statement if what you truly believe science represents in your world view, and your agenda for misrepresenting science..

Yeah. What it really comes down to for me is that the structures of the universe.. from stars to galaxies...had a beginning in any of the theories...all the way down to subatomic particles. They had a beginning..in all the theories. Any speculative theories propose in some form or another outside of known universe and laws..could well be God Himself.

IN ALL the theories, the beginning of the universe remains a temporal beginning from a cosmic preexisting Quantum world.

What else do you have to offer?

Science, just science without theological presuppositions.

WRONG. The big bang theory states it had a beginning. That's according to science, not theology.

Temporal beginning only from a preexisting greater cosmos, and not all theories propose a beginning for our universe.

Ok well then you are stuck to explain how the universe appeared. In reality, by your own argument, the big bang is not a beginning but only a step in the natural movement of space and in time. But on the other hand, at the same time, they say the big bang was the absolute beginning. You can't have it both ways. So the materialist have no answer how all this started. Some says that positing a deity is too simplistic and we ask, in return, "have you got any better explanation?" to which they have no answer. The big bang does not posit a sudden explosion without a cause. The theory has an explanation for the cause.

No it is not only a step of space in time. I never proposed that and neither has any serious scientist. This must be something out of your imagination. No, it does not posit a deity.

No the big bang has never been posited by science as a sudden explosion without a cause.

The explanation presupposes the existence of transcendent beyond the universe, space and time.

No, the explanation does not presuppose the existence of transcendent beyond the universe, space and time. This is unknown, and science takes no stand either way.

The existence of a transcendent being is not dependent on your view as to under what conditions such a transcendent being exists.

[AkByR64]

No science is not based on theories. Science is based scientific methods, objective evidence, and the falsification of theories and hypothesis. You are not comprehending the meaning of science not knowing. This concept of knowing would be believing in absolutes. Science does not deal in absolutes nor proofs.

Yes science is based on theories. Some theories have truly overwhelming evidence, such as the geological theory that states the Earth's crust is made of tectonic plates, or the chemical theory that states chemical reactions are due to things called 'atoms'. Theories allow us to know how the world works, and to predict how it will work, so we can build things like suspension bridges, internal combustion engines, and so on. Theories are very powerful.

But science has nothing on God. Science deals with the natural world.. God is of the supernatural.

Science has weakness because it cannot explain morality and ethical issue. Can you use science to proof why killing is morally right or wrong?

Fortunately science does not claim to know things in any absolute sense. No one should make that claim.

It's impossible to achieve proof through empiricism (the acquisition of evidence and facts). We cannot prove anything beyond all doubt. But that's OK..we may not be able to proof 100% certainty, but 99.9% is basically the same thing. So long as you understand that a theory is an explanation that has a wealth of evidence. Some theories have truly overwhelming evidence than others. So in this sense it's "just" theories, but with the understanding that theories are very, very powerful.

No, you are misrepresenting the physics and cosmology for your own agenda.

Cosmology points to a beginning of the universe. The big bang. If the big bang is not the beginning of the universe then what is?

Theological speculation, not science.

I notice that every theory they have about the beginning of the universe..involved God like characteristics. Multiverse, infinite potential..or some such..all transcends known space time and matter. So ... it might as well be God. And it's like saying..'if the Multiverse caused the Big bang, then what caused the Multiverse'? Well... maybe something else cause it, maybe another Multiverse caused it.. then you would have to believe in the in infinite regress. That's also not possible.

Your logical deduction is begging the question' based on a religious agenda. The above confirms this.

So what? Who one made the rule? Don't like it.. give some explanations then.. instead of making "we don't know" statement.

Still misrepresenting science. There is no scientific claim that space existed before the big bang.

No I didn't misrepresented science. Thank you for conceding that the big bang was the absolute beginning. I rest my case!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Cosmology points to a beginning of the universe. The big bang. If the big bang is not the beginning of the universe then what is?

No I didn't misrepresented science. Thank you for conceding that the big bang was the absolute beginning. I rest my case!

You may have missed my previous post, since it came at the end of the last page, but your claim is inaccurate and you actually are misrepresenting the science involved. So, once again: This is a very common misconception amongst those who support the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Firstly, it is not true that the Big Bang demarcates an absolute beginning for space-time. There are numerous cosmological models in which this is not the case, including quite a number of models in which Time is past-infinite.

However, more importantly, if it is correct that the Big Bang marks an absolute beginning for space-time, then the Cosmological Argument fails, anyway. If Time is past-finite with a boundary at the Big Bang, then the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" is entirely nonsensical. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang," in that case. There would literally never have been a state in which the universe did not exist, if the Big Bang marks the past-boundary for Time.

I notice that every theory they have about the beginning of the universe..involved God like characteristics. Multiverse, infinite potential..or some such..all transcends known space time and matter.

You don't seem to be very familiar with cosmological models. There are quite a number which do not posit "God like characteristics" upon that which preceded the Big Bang (including Multiverse scenarios), and quite a number of others which predict that there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang."

So what? Who one made the rule? Don't like it.. give some explanations then.. instead of making "we don't know" statement.

That's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. The fact that an answer is unknown does not mean you can therefore posit some Ad Hoc explanation and reasonably claim it to be true.

[AkByR64]

Perhaps I missed it in the earlier pages of the thread, but what is your intended goal with Presuppositional Apologetics? Are you looking for an apologetic which is well-suited for Evangelism? If so, as an atheist, I will tell you that the Presuppositional Apologetic is the absolute worst tactic you can take with an unbeliever. It attempts to take the position which it is ostensibly defending as an axiom. Generally, the axioms in any argument or system of logic are supposed to be things with which people almost universally agree. It is not even universally agreed amongst Christians that the God of the Bible is a necessary prerequisite to knowledge, let alone amongst non-Christians; nor is it universally agreed amongst theists that deity is necessary for the existence of knowledge, let alone amongst non-theists.

In short, if your goal is Evangelism, the Presuppositional Apologetic is almost entirely ineffective, and often quite counterproductive.

I did not know that this was a debating room between theist and atheism of different worldviews. I thought it was a Christian only section so that's why I asked the question I did in the OP.

As a presuppositionalist, there are "preconditions" that must be true in order to have a discussion, live our lives, or do anything at all.

Preconditions:

Logical laws (ie: entailment relationships between propositions), reliability of our memories, reliability of our sense perceptions, the ability to know historical events, the existence of other minds, the ability to know our own mental states etc. So we must "begin" with these pre-conditions.

While we might begin our apologetic by showing that we all must account for these preconditions then show that God is the only way to account for them...that is not to say that our theory of knowledge itself, rests upon them. God is my authority, not my senses, not logical entailments, not historical data, etc.

This is a very common misconception amongst those who support the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Firstly, it is not true that the Big Bang demarcates an absolute beginning for space-time. There are numerous cosmological models in which this is not the case, including quite a number of models in which Time is past-infinite.

If time has always existed for eternity, we'd all be in heat death right now..as there wouldn't be any usable energy left in the universe. And we wouldn't have got to the point where we are are now also as that would take an infinite amount of time to get here. If you believe time is infinite then you would reduce yourself to absurdity.

However, more importantly, if it is correct that the Big Bang marks an absolute beginning for space-time, then the Cosmological Argument fails, anyway.

Not true. That would actually support the Kalam Cosmological Argument because the argument posited a defensible first cause. A first cause must account for the creation of matter, space, time, energy. But the materialists cannot allow for that possibility. They have no explanation for the first cause. None. Either they admit it was a creation without knowable cause, or they admit that the universe existed before the big bang. They cannot have it both ways. I can admit validity of all the science.. they have only speculations.

If Time is past-finite with a boundary at the Big Bang, then the question, "What came before the Big Bang?" is entirely nonsensical. There is no such thing as "before the Big Bang," in that case. There would literally never have been a state in which the universe did not exist, if the Big Bang marks the past-boundary for Time.

Nothing existed before the big bang and universe. The big bang theory postulates the origin of space. Matter cannot exist without space. There was no matter prior to the origin of the universe. Matter came into being at the beginning instant. It was the beginning of space and time. That is why a supernatural cause is needed to explain it...because it is the beginning of the universe out of nothing.

[AkByR64]

You don't seem to be very familiar with cosmological models. There are quite a number which do not posit "God like characteristics" upon that which preceded the Big Bang (including Multiverse scenarios), and quite a number of others which predict that there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang."

Anything or anywhere outside of the singularity is outside this known universe. Any source outside the known universe in some speculative propose form or another could well be God Himself... because all pre big bang theories are actually metaphysical speculation about things outside the known universe. How is that any different than saying God did it?

That's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy. The fact that an answer is unknown does not mean you can therefore posit some Ad Hoc explanation and reasonably claim it to be true.

The answer IS God. Better than " I don't know". I don't know is ignorance. Some of you guys are saying you don't know, but want to assume that means 'no god'. I didn't think "I don't know, but it sure wasn't 'God'!...is a better explanation than 'God'.

[AkByR64]

If you don't know then get the hell out of this debate room. "I dont know" do not belong here.

If you dont know, then that's it for you. cased closed.

[shunyadragon]

If you don't know then get the hell out of this debate room. "I dont know" do not belong here.

If you dont know, then that's it for you. cased closed.

Failure to respond. The concept of 'not knowing' is in terms of 'absolute knowing.' This is repeat a number of times. Do you understand the English language?

Pythagoras gave the appropriate response to the fallacy of your argument; Argument from Ignorance fallacy

You are still misrepresenting science, and selectively using science to justify a religious agenda.

Case not closed!!

If you wish to continue, please represent science as science, and do not cherry pick to justify you religious agenda.

[shunyadragon]

As a presuppositionalist, there are "preconditions" that must be true in order to have a discussion, live our lives, or do anything at all.

Preconditions:

Logical laws (ie: entailment relationships between propositions), reliability of our memories, reliability of our sense perceptions, the ability to know historical events, the existence of other minds, the ability to know our own mental states etc. So we must "begin" with these pre-conditions.

While we might begin our apologetic by showing that we all must account for these preconditions then show that God is the only way to account for them...that is not to say that our theory of knowledge itself, rests upon them. God is my authority, not my senses, not logical entailments, not historical data, etc.

These preconditions preclude any possible dialogue of alternatives other then what you unconditionally believe as an anecdotal claim based on faith.

If time has always existed for eternity, we'd all be in heat death right now..as there wouldn't be any usable energy left in the universe. And we wouldn't have got to the point where we are are now also as that would take an infinite amount of time to get here. If you believe time is infinite then you would reduce yourself to absurdity.

This an anecdotal claim on your part, and not based on science. The contemporary view of science is that space/time is not eternal, but the nature of universes in the greater cosmos.

Not true. That would actually support the Kalam Cosmological Argument because the argument posited a defensible first cause. A first cause must account for the creation of matter, space, time, energy. But the materialists cannot allow for that possibility. They have no explanation for the first cause. None. Either they admit it was a creation without knowable cause, or they admit that the universe existed before the big bang. They cannot have it both ways. I can admit validity of all the science.. they have only speculations.

Science does not propose 'two ways.' The 'first cause' for materialists is simply the greater Quantum Cosmos from which all possible universe are born and die, and of course, the Philosophical Naturalist belief that there are no god(s). From the Methodological Naturalism perspective this is the most likely the physical nature of the Greater Cosmos, but there is no assumption nor conclusions as to the existence of god(s) beyond the physical cosmos.

Nothing existed before the big bang and universe. The big bang theory postulates the origin of space. Matter cannot exist without space. There was no matter prior to the origin of the universe. Matter came into being at the beginning instant. It was the beginning of space and time. That is why a supernatural cause is needed to explain it...because it is the beginning of the universe out of nothing.

This is a theological claim, and not based on the science of physics and cosmology.