An Infinite Past?

[Tassman]

See this is the problem Tass. I can be much more open minded than you.

Nonsense! You’re not “open- minded”, you are closed minded: For you God is not negotiable. In your worldview God is established fact and given precedence over ALL scientific knowledge, no matter how well evidenced, unless it can be made to conform to your religious presuppositions. Your approach to science is as far as proper scientific methodology as it’s possible to get.

Yes I believe God created this universe but did He use natural means or supernatural? Scripture doesn't tell us. Did he create other universes, a multiverse, has He been creating universes from eternity past? That is Shuny's position. Scripture is silent on these matters. None of these other possibilities undermine my faith, but you, and atheists in general, need a natural explanation and without such an natural cause your faith is in great danger indeed.

The ONLY substantiated explanations we have are natural ones; we have NO credible non-natural explanations. None! Science is the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works and originated. The Babylonian/Genesis creation myth is not credible evidence; nor are any of the other creation myths and nor are any of the pre-scientific 'holy books' purportedly inspired by a deity. This is why it’s disingenuous for you to try so hard to discredit the various scientific hypotheses which are slowly but surely gaining understanding of the functioning of the universe(s).

[Tassman]

No Jim, that is false, the Borde Guth Vlenkin Theorem - the most popular multiverse theory, is not "past complete" - it doesn't lead to an eternal past. See the link. And so now you believe that the universe created itself - out of nothing? So what triggered that energy vacuum to do what it did? You are getting very close to the Christian doctrine of Ex Nihilo

The Borde, Guth, Vlenkin Theorem, according to Vilenkin, Carol and others is “past-incomplete” at this stage, NOT that it doesn't or can’t lead to an eternal past. It merely means that our knowledge is insufficient as yet to determine for sure either way. But Vilenkin and others have already posited possible explanations – quantum tunnelling being one. But of course, you will cling to your presupposition of ‘creatio ex nihilo whatever the scientific evidence may be. Correct?

[seer]

Nonsense! You’re not “open- minded”, you are closed minded: For you God is not negotiable. In your worldview God is established fact and given precedence over ALL scientific knowledge, no matter how well evidenced, unless it can be made to conform to your religious presuppositions. Your approach to science is as far as proper scientific methodology as it’s possible to get.

The ONLY substantiated explanations we have are natural ones; we have NO credible non-natural explanations. None! Science is the best tool ever devised for explaining how the world works and originated. The Babylonian/Genesis creation myth is not credible evidence; nor are any of the other creation myths and nor are any of the pre-scientific 'holy books' purportedly inspired by a deity. This is why it’s disingenuous for you to try so hard to discredit the various scientific hypotheses which are slowly but surely gaining understanding of the functioning of the universe(s).

Sorry Tass, the fact is for the reason I gave I can certainly can be much more open minded. And yes science works, but that is what I would expect if a rational Creator created a intelligible universe. And I discredit nothing, I'm just pointing to the glaring problems with the various origin theories. Mainly that there is no actual physical evidence for any of them, and the fact that they contradict each other. You on the other hand are willing to believe these theories without one lick of physical evidence. Like I said in the past, don't let it be said that I deny any man his faith...

[seer]

The Borde, Guth, Vlenkin Theorem, according to Vilenkin, Carol and others is “past-incomplete” at this stage, NOT that it doesn't or can’t lead to an eternal past. It merely means that our knowledge is insufficient as yet to determine for sure either way. But Vilenkin and others have already posited possible explanations – quantum tunnelling being one. But of course, you will cling to your presupposition of ‘creatio ex nihilo whatever the scientific evidence may be. Correct?

Correct, they do not say that an eternal past is impossible, but there is no evidence that it is eternal either - just the opposite at this point. And now you look to quantum tunnelling? Where is the evidence that the quantum world existed outside or before this universe? You are willing to believe anything Tass as long as the word "science" is attached to it. Talk about gullible!

[seer]

Highlighted not claimed by Reinhardt. This seer editorializing for a religious agends

It is not Reinhardt Shuny, it is Steinhardt. And predictions are meaningless with the multiverse model because they are unfalsifiable - and that is fact.

The issue in science is Methodological Naturalism.

And? How does that change the fact that men, even scientists, are bias?

[shunyadragon]

It is not Reinhardt Shuny, it is Steinhardt. And predictions are meaningless with the multiverse model because they are unfalsifiable - and that is fact.

No, it is not a fact. It represents a challenge for the future of science based on our present knowledge. A 'fact' would be the 'The sky is Carolina blue on a clear 4th of July at noon.'

And? How does that change the fact that men, even scientists, are bias?

The long range foundation of scientist methodology and assumptions collectively cannot be atheist not theist. Of course, individual scientists may have bias, but science on the long term is self correcting by repetitive research, peer review by thousands of scientists world wide over time, and the knowledge of science evolves and changes over time regardless of individual bias. Theists, atheists, agnostics, and deists are scientists in this evolving process of the knowledge of our physical existence. The bottom line is Methodological Naturalism does not make assumptions on the existence nor the nature of a 'Source' some call God(s).

[seer]

No, it is not a fact. It represents a challenge for the future of science based on our present knowledge. A 'fact' would be the 'The sky is Carolina blue on a clear 4th of July at noon.'

Really, how do you, even in theory, get around Steinhardts objection:

Scanning over all possible bubbles in the multiverse, everything that can physically happen does happen an infinite number of times. No experiment can rule out a theory that allows for all possible outcomes. Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.

The bottom line is Methodological Naturalism does not make assumptions on the existence nor the nature of a 'Source' some call God(s).

Of course it does, it must, you must assume that all phenomenon have a natural explanation.

[shunyadragon]

Really, how do you, even in theory, get around Steinhardts objection:

Tass's post adequately address this.

Of course it does, it must, you must assume that all phenomenon have a natural explanation.

No it does not. Methodological Naturalism (MN) can only address natural explanations. There may well be Divine or other (aliens?) explanations, but MN cannot deal with questions of other possible explanations. Reputable Theist scientists, of course, believe in Divine explanations, but acknowledge that MN cannot answer theological questions about the Divine nature and origins of our physical existence.

[seer]

Tass's post adequately address this.

No he didn't, again, even in theory, how do you get around Steinhardt's objection?

No it does not. Methodological Naturalism (MN) can only address natural explanations. There may well be Divine or other (aliens?) explanations, but MN cannot deal with questions of other possible explanations. Reputable Theist scientists, of course, believe in Divine explanations, but acknowledge that MN cannot answer theological questions about the Divine nature and origins of our physical existence.

So those using Methodological Naturalism do not assume that that all phenomenon natural explanations? What do they assume than?

[shunyadragon]

No he didn't, again, even in theory, how do you get around Steinhardt's objection?



So those using Methodological Naturalism do not assume that that all phenomenon natural explanations? What do they assume than?

Because MN cannot address any other explanations and assumptions. MN, by definition and practicality, is strictly devoted to the scientific methodology to investigate and gather knowledge concerning the physical nature our existence.

[seer]

Because MN cannot address any other explanations and assumptions. MN, by definition and practicality, is strictly devoted to the scientific methodology to investigate and gather knowledge concerning the physical nature our existence.

So again scientist do not assume Methodological Naturalism - what do they assume?

[shunyadragon]

So again scientist do not assume Methodological Naturalism - what do they assume?

Again they assume MN.

The following article goes into considerable detail concerning the different aspects of Naturalism, focusing on Methodological Naturalism. The following is brief accurate description of MN.

Source: http://infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/naturalism.html

Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. Although there is variation in the views of modern naturalists, Kurtz's definition captures these two most important aspects of modern naturalism: (1) the reliance on scientific method, grounded in empiricism, as the only reliable method of acquiring knowledge about the natural world, and (2) the inadmissibility of the supernatural or transcendent into its metaphysical scheme.

© Copyright Original Source

There is not any scientific evidence nor knowledge that could possibly support either theism nor atheism.

[Tassman]

Sorry Tass, the fact is for the reason I gave I can certainly can be much more open minded.

Given that your non-negotiable position is “GOD”, come what may, then you are being closed minded not “open minded”.

And yes science works, but that is what I would expect if a rational Creator created a intelligible universe.

"IF!!!" But there is not a scintilla of substantiated evidence for your alleged “rational Creator” even existing. You demand complete explanations of scientific theories which are still in development but resort to special pleading for your deity for whom there's no credible evidence at all.

And I discredit nothing, I'm just pointing to the glaring problems with the various origin theories. Mainly that there is no actual physical evidence for any of them, and the fact that they contradict each other. You on the other hand are willing to believe these theories without one lick of physical evidence. Like I said in the past, don't let it be said that I deny any man his faith...

More misleading hyperbole in your attempt to “prove God” by discrediting science - as if the deity was the default position to fall back upon; it's not.

The various “origin hypotheses” have some problems, not “glaring problems” and as well they have all have supporting evidence - which is why they remain viable theories. If they had no more than just “a lick of evidence” they would be discarded. And they do not necessarily “contradict each other”, many of them overlap.

Testing competing hypotheses is how science functions - it's not the failure of scientific methodology you seem to be implying. Your anti-science overkill is based upon ignorance and prejudice.

Conversely, “there is no actual physical evidence” for the God hypothesis, no testing of competing “contradictory” God models, no credible evidence of non-natural phenomena, and yet you are “willing to believe” your God theory “without one lick of physical evidence” based upon nothing more than subjective experiences of a kind which vary from religion to religion, culture to culture and era to era.

[Tassman]

Correct, they do not say that an eternal past is impossible, but there is no evidence that it is eternal either - just the opposite at this point.

They do not say or imply . They say that as yet the theory is past incomplete. You have jumped in too soon to give the universe a beginning, which of course you need for your unevidenced creator deity to be able to do his thing ex nihilo. Otherwise God's out of a job.

And now you look to quantum tunnelling? Where is the evidence that the quantum world existed outside or before this universe? You are willing to believe anything Tass as long as the word "science" is attached to it. Talk about gullible!

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physic...om_nothing.pdf

Note that when Vilenkin and other cosmologists say "nothing" in this context, they are referring to the quantum vacuum, not 'absolute nothingness' in the metaphysical sense.

[seer]

Again they assume MN.

That is my point, they assume Methodological Naturalism, and will attempt to force all phenomenon into that model, whether it fits or not.