An Infinite Past?

[tabibito]

Yes, my response is the same. I would not have enough data, at that point, to be able to say whether the occurrence was natural or supernatural.

Listing a series of hypothetical extraordinary events does not, in any way, provide a method for distinguishing natural events from supernatural events. That is, of course, unless you are defining "supernatural" as simply being synonymous with "extraordinary occurrence with no known cause." However, I do not suspect that this is the case.

Quite true. I was wondering if it would be possible to provide evidence that would satisfy you, or at least give you pause to consider the supernatural as a possibility.

I would not have enough data, at that point, to be able to say whether the occurrence was natural or supernatural.

That indicates a healthy caution, and that you would not need anything quite as dramatic as I have outlined. A less honest answer would not have led to this assessment.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I only mentioned it to point to the fact that not all events have a natural explanation. Whether that is convincing to you or not is immaterial, it is still a fact of history as any other fact of history.

Your proclamation that it is a fact of history does not make it a fact of history.

No, I did want to demonstrate anything, only that I know from personal experience natural explanations are not always necessary. The other point is that there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation. Especially in light of the fact that our knowledge is so limited and finite.

So, you did not want to demonstrate anything. You only wanted to proclaim that you know a thing, and to assert a position which you have no intention of supporting. I must admit that I am curious as to why you felt the need to interject these proclamations into the conversation if you didn't care whether anyone accepted them or not.

Credence according to whom? You? Is your personal experience the rule to which we all must bend?

Not my credence in particular, certainly. Anyone's credence. You have stated that you were not attempting to demonstrate anything. If that is the case, then you did not intend for anyone to evaluate your claims. That's perfectly fine. I had simply mistaken your intentions, earlier, as desiring a rational dialogue.

[seer]

Your proclamation that it is a fact of history does not make it a fact of history.

Of course it is a fact of history. As all real events are. What else could it be?

So, you did not want to demonstrate anything. You only wanted to proclaim that you know a thing, and to assert a position which you have no intention of supporting. I must admit that I am curious as to why you felt the need to interject these proclamations into the conversation if you didn't care whether anyone accepted them or not.

Not my credence in particular, certainly. Anyone's credence. You have stated that you were not attempting to demonstrate anything. If that is the case, then you did not intend for anyone to evaluate your claims. That's perfectly fine. I had simply mistaken your intentions, earlier, as desiring a rational dialogue.

OK, let me ask again. Is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Quite true. I was wondering if it would be possible to provide evidence that would satisfy you, or at least give you pause to consider the supernatural as a possibility.

That indicates a healthy caution, and that you would not need anything quite as dramatic as I have outlined. A less honest answer would not have led to this assessment.

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what I would need to be convinced that there is such a thing as the supernatural. I will leave the burden of that work to the claimants.

[tabibito]

To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what I would need to be convinced that there is such a thing as the supernatural. I will leave the burden of that work to the claimants.

In the final analysis, that is all that can be done. To the best of my knowledge, no-one at this time has been granted the authority to do anything really spectacular - though some do have access to limited authority.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Of course it is a fact of history. As all real events are. What else could it be?

There are two options: it might be a fact of history, or else it might not be. Your declaration that it is a fact of history does not make it one.

OK, let me ask again. Is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation?

Only the lack of alternative. When phenomena occur in the natural world, the rational course is to think that they have natural explanations until it has been demonstrated that there exists another possibility.

[seer]

There are two options: it might be a fact of history, or else it might not be. Your declaration that it is a fact of history does not make it one.

No, there are not two opinions, there is only one - mine. You were not there.

Only the lack of alternative. When phenomena occur in the natural world, the rational course is to think that they have natural explanations until it has been demonstrated that there exists another possibility.

That is not what I asked Boxing, let me try again, is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, there are not two opinions, there is only one - mine. You were not there.

Whether I was there or not is irrelevant to the logical possibilities.

That is not what I asked Boxing, let me try again, is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation?

And my answer stands. The lack of a cogent alternative.

[shunyadragon]

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

That is NOT the assumption of MN. The assumption of MN is that MN can only deal with natural explanations. As I referenced, Philosophical Naturalism is the metaphysical position based on the assumption that everything has a natural explanation.

If you do not accept this please cite a reference that supports your view.

[shunyadragon]

That is not what I asked Boxing, let me try again, is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation?

No.

[seer]

Whether I was there or not is irrelevant to the logical possibilities.

Well if you could offer a reasonable natural explanation I'm all ears.

And my answer stands. The lack of a cogent alternative.

You are avoiding the question Boxing. I'm not saying we shouldn't generally assume a natural explanation for a particular events, I'm asking if there is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation. Two different questions.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well if you could offer a reasonable natural explanation I'm all ears.

That's not the way the burden of proof works. You asserted that there was an event for which there could be no natural explanation. If you want others to believe that such an event occurred, you have the job of demonstrating this. If you do not want others to believe that his event occurred, it is irrelevant to the dialogue. This applies regardless of whether your claim is true or false.

You are avoiding the question Boxing. I'm not saying we shouldn't generally assume a natural explanation for a particular events, I'm asking if there is there any logical reason to assume that all phenomena requires a natural explanation. Two different questions.

This issue began as a discussion of Methodological Naturalism. On such a methodology, alone, there is no reason to assume that all phenomena require natural explanations. Methodological Naturalism has nothing to say about anything besides the natural.

I also happen to be a Philosophical Naturalist. From that end of the spectrum, I would assert that the idea of something existing outside of the natural world lacks cogency; as such, it would follow that any phenomenon which can be explained has a natural explanation.

[Tassman]

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

It's not. Scientific theory cannot be based upon unevidenced religious presuppositions any more than it can be based upon magic.

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

Natural forces are the only substantive evidence we have to work with; there is no credible evidence of non-natural forces in the universe(s). To claim that the "intelligible cosmos" could not arise via natural forces is the Argument from Incredulity fallacy.

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.

Nonsense! A scientific hypothesis is essentially an educated guess based upon preliminary data, i.e. the existing evidence,

[Tassman]

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.

All current theories start with something, and even if physicists call it "nothing" their version of nothing is something, namely the quantum vacuum, and not really "nothing" at all - as I said previously. Newtonian mechanics breaks down at the Planck epoch right where Quantum Mechanics comes into play. Vilenkin himself proposes a possible solution to his own theorem in quantum terms via quantum tunnelling. The most one can say about the BGV Inflationary model, according to Carol is that it is past-incomplete and requires different physics to describe what, if anything went before.

BTW: Your attitude to science is dishonest. You critique incomplete scientific theories, i.e. those which are still in the developmental stage, as though they were established theories and then when they fall short conclude with a triumphant: “Therefore God…” In short, a god-of–the-gaps argument; your speciality it seems.

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:

So in your mind scientific theory is only true if it conforms to Christian doctrine. Do you not see the problem here?

See above re “nothing”.

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

Not "created" by God", necessarily! Modern physics has discovered natural phenomena that do NOT have discernible causes, e.g. radioactive decay whereby it’s utterly impossible to predict when a specific atom will disintegrate - similarly the spontaneous generation of virtual particles which randomly appear even in the apparent complete vacuum, which in Quantum Mechanics is called Zero-Point energy.

[seer]

This issue began as a discussion of Methodological Naturalism. On such a methodology, alone, there is no reason to assume that all phenomena require natural explanations. Methodological Naturalism has nothing to say about anything besides the natural.

OK, good.

I also happen to be a Philosophical Naturalist. From that end of the spectrum, I would assert that the idea of something existing outside of the natural world lacks cogency; as such, it would follow that any phenomenon which can be explained has a natural explanation.

If I remember correctly Philosophical Naturalism denies any possibility of the supernatural. How, can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold that position?

That's not the way the burden of proof works. You asserted that there was an event for which there could be no natural explanation. If you want others to believe that such an event occurred, you have the job of demonstrating this. If you do not want others to believe that his event occurred, it is irrelevant to the dialogue. This applies regardless of whether your claim is true or false.

I think you are missing my point. Such events, i.e. miracles, would be rare and witnessed by a limited number of people. These are not phenomenon that you reason out through hypotheses. That is not how history works or is known. That however does not make them any less true. And I wasn't trying to convince you, I was seriously asking if you could come up with a natural explanation. I could not, and I asked a number of people (more educated than I) if they could. Even though I was praying at the time, and I think this event did violate the laws of nature, I really am open to a natural explanation.