An Infinite Past?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

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

Considering the fact that supernatural things cannot be studied, measured, or modeled in any empirical manner, only the natural aspects of any phenomenon can be addressed by the physical sciences.

Even if supernatural hypotheses for phenomena which occur in the natural world are true, there is no manner in which those hypotheses can be addressed. As such, the physical sciences ignore them. This is no more an infraction than is the fact that theology can tell us nothing, at all, about the Collatz Conjecture, and thereby leaves its discussion to mathematics.

[shunyadragon]

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

Do the tens of thousands of theist scientists around the world 'force' the all phenomenon into MN science? Is this some kind of universal conspiracy theory involving almost all the scientists of the world?

[seer]

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

Yes, I do believe that "God did it." But how He did it is open for discussion, did He uses natural or supernatural means

"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 there is not a "cintilla of substantiated evidence" that the non-rational forces of nature did or could create such a intelligible cosmos.

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.

Nonsense Tass, it is not hyperbole. There is zero physical evidence - they only have ideas, and ideas that actually contradict each other. You don't want to see that because for you there must be a natural explanation for everything.

[seer]

They do not say or imply “just the opposite at this point”. 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.

No Tass, watch the Vilenkin video I linked, he clearly says that the multiverse needs a beginning. Perhaps that will change in the future, but it is not the case now. So you can keep your faith.

Quantum tunneling is Vilenkin’s proposal, not mine and your snide defensiveness is noted

“A cosmological model is proposed in which the universe is created by quantum tunneling from literally nothing into a de Sitter space. After the tunneling, the model evolves along the lines of the inflationary scenario. This model does not have a big-bang singularity and does not require any initial or boundary conditions”.

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.

Like I said it does my heart good to see you getting closer to Christian doctrine of Ex Nihilo. But this again does not lead to an eternal past, and to quote Vilenkin:

In this paper I would like to suggest a new cosmological scenario in which the universe is spontaneously created from literally nothing

Spontaneously created? "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth..."

[seer]

Do the tens of thousands of theist scientists around the world 'force' the all phenomenon into MN science? Is this some kind of universal conspiracy theory involving almost all the scientists of the world?

I didn't say it was a conspiracy, but it is a mindset. One that may push one to invent natural explanations where one does not exist. Like in this origins discussion. Of like with my recent experience.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...re-A-Violation

[shunyadragon]

I didn't say it was a conspiracy, but it is a mindset. One that may push one to invent natural explanations where one does not exist. Like in this origins discussion. Of like with my recent experience.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...re-A-Violation

Well, ah . . . what you described is a Conspiracy Theory big time.

This experience has absolutely nothing to do with how you described this 'Conspiracy Theory.' Your acrid negative view of science has a longer history then this experience. The bottom line is the science of MN could not remotely explain your experience, nor would science legitimately try to.

[seer]

Well, ah . . . what you described is a Conspiracy Theory big time.

This experience has absolutely nothing to do with how you described this 'Conspiracy Theory.' Your acrid negative view of science has a longer history then this experience. The bottom line is the science of MN could not remotely explain your experience, nor would science legitimately try to.

The fact is Shuny with MN comes the assumption, hidden or not so hidden, that everything has a natural explanation.

[seer]

Considering the fact that supernatural things cannot be studied, measured, or modeled in any empirical manner, only the natural aspects of any phenomenon can be addressed by the physical sciences.

That does not mean that supernatural events can not be experienced or known. As any other fact is known.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

That does not mean that supernatural events can not be experienced or known. As any other fact is known.

Well, it certainly means that they cannot become known as other facts become known, since other facts are known through interaction with the physical world.

It also means that supernatural hypotheses are fairly meaningless in the physical sciences, since they are largely indistinguishable from the complete absence of a hypothesis.

[seer]

Well, it certainly means that they cannot become known as other facts become known, since other facts are known through interaction with the physical world.

I have no idea what that means. If Christ turned water into wine that can be known. We may not know how it was done, but we can know that it was done.

It also means that supernatural hypotheses are fairly meaningless in the physical sciences, since they are largely indistinguishable from the complete absence of a hypothesis.

Perhaps, but since physical sciences are not the last word on what is possible or not, real or not, the point is moot.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I have no idea what that means. If Christ turned water into wine that can be known. We may not know how it was done, but we can know that it was done.

What I mean is that we cannot come by knowledge of the supernatural through observation of the natural.

Perhaps, but since physical sciences are not the last word on what is possible or not, real or not, the point is moot.

If you have a hypothesis which can be demonstrated by another method, perhaps we could discuss that, instead.

[seer]

What I mean is that we cannot come by knowledge of the supernatural through observation of the natural.

Again, I do not know what that means. You couldn't know that turning water into wine was a supernatural act, known by the physical results?

If you have a hypothesis which can be demonstrated by another method, perhaps we could discuss that, instead.

What are you taking about? Do you think can science can answer all questions?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Again, I do not know what that means. You couldn't know that turning water into wine was a supernatural act, known by the physical results?

That is correct. The physical results of turning water into wine could not indicate a supernatural cause. All they would indicate is the physical process undergone. We might be able to tell that the water actually became wine. We might be able to determine the chemical process undergone to effect this change. However, if there were any supernatural aspect attached to the event, we could not come to that knowledge by an examination of the physical data.

What are you taking about? Do you think can science can answer all questions?

Not at all. However, if you have a question which cannot be answered by science, but which can be assigned a demonstrable answer by means of some other methodology, let's discuss that.

[tabibito]

That is correct. The physical results of turning water into wine could not indicate a supernatural cause. All they would indicate is the physical process undergone. We might be able to tell that the water actually became wine. We might be able to determine the chemical process undergone to effect this change. However, if there were any supernatural aspect attached to the event, we could not come to that knowledge by an examination of the physical data.

Seems to me that the only determination that could be made is that the change couldn't be attributed to any known cause.

Not at all. However, if you have a question which cannot be answered by science, but which can be assigned a demonstrable answer by means of some other methodology, let's discuss that.

Methodology couldn't account for an event that can't be reproduced at will - or so I had thought.

[seer]

That is correct. The physical results of turning water into wine could not indicate a supernatural cause. All they would indicate is the physical process undergone. We might be able to tell that the water actually became wine. We might be able to determine the chemical process undergone to effect this change. However, if there were any supernatural aspect attached to the event, we could not come to that knowledge by an examination of the physical data.

Why not? The process of elimination. If there is no natural cause why can't we pose a supernatural cause? Even if we do not know the mechanism?

Not at all. However, if you have a question which cannot be answered by science, but which can be assigned a demonstrable answer by means of some other methodology, let's discuss that.

But supernatural events or spiritual properties would not be open to specific methodologies. How could they be, so you hobble me from the get go.