Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[carpedm9587]

True, but as element771 are you on his page concerning his claims. I do believe we are in agreement on these points only. It was element771 who claimed you were on these points. I was clear I only referred to these point and acknowledged that we are in disagreement on many things.

I'll refer you to my previous posts. I think they were reasonably clear.

[shunyadragon]

I'll refer you to my previous posts. I think they were reasonably clear.

At times they were not always clear. element771 thinks you both are on the same page.

[carpedm9587]

At times they were not always clear. element771 thinks you both are on the same page.

I think each of you are taking part of what I said and agreeing with it. I agree with Element on the definition of a "scientific hypothesis." It does not seem to me that you and I are in agreement on that. I think there is some disagreement on what "beginning" is being referred to. Clearly the space/time continuum we experience had its beginning in an event we call "the big bang." The evidence for that event appears solid. That appears to be the "beginning" Element is referring to. Where the singularity that exploded "came from" is a question that is not answered. That appears to be the "beginning" you are referring to, which is why I think you and Element are speaking past each other.

Of the proffered theories, only the cyclic universe theory has any hope (AFAICT) of being classified as a "scientific theory." At present, no explanation for the origin of the singularity has a testable/falsifiable theory that I know of.

That's basically how I see things.

[Tassman]

I think each of you are taking part of what I said and agreeing with it. I agree with Element on the definition of a "scientific hypothesis." It does not seem to me that you and I are in agreement on that. I think there is some disagreement on what "beginning" is being referred to. Clearly the space/time continuum we experience had its beginning in an event we call "the big bang." The evidence for that event appears solid. That appears to be the "beginning" Element is referring to. Where the singularity that exploded "came from" is a question that is not answered. That appears to be the "beginning" you are referring to, which is why I think you and Element are speaking past each other.

Of the proffered theories, only the cyclic universe theory has any hope (AFAICT) of being classified as a "scientific theory." At present, no explanation for the origin of the singularity has a testable/falsifiable theory that I know of.

That's basically how I see things.

[carpedm9587]

So, theological "truths" (if there is such a thing) are not arrived at in a vacuum. Every theological work I have ever read is grounded in our experience as humans on this planet. They make reference to the wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity, the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, and so forth. They draw on archaeology, history, biology, and so forth. I think there is a difference between using what we know about the universe and ourselves to arrive at "theological truths," and attempting to use the scientific method to prove god exists. The former is perfectly reasonable. The latter is unreasonable. By definition, god belongs to the realm of the "supernatural" and "spiritual." I know of no way to apply scientific procedures to explore that realm. That is why creationism cannot be a science - and must be a theology. The same with so-called "intelligent design" (creationism in a new suit).

When I look at the statements above, I do not see a claim that we can use scientific methodology to arrive at an understanding of god. I only see a claim that scientific conclusions can be used to inform theological arguments. I don't see a problem with that.

[Tassman]

So, theological "truths" (if there is such a thing) are not arrived at in a vacuum. Every theological work I have ever read is grounded in our experience as humans on this planet. They make reference to the wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity, the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, and so forth. They draw on archaeology, history, biology, and so forth. I think there is a difference between using what we know about the universe and ourselves to arrive at "theological truths," and attempting to use the scientific method to prove god exists. The former is perfectly reasonable. The latter is unreasonable. By definition, god belongs to the realm of the "supernatural" and "spiritual." I know of no way to apply scientific procedures to explore that realm. That is why creationism cannot be a science - and must be a theology. The same with so-called "intelligent design" (creationism in a new suit).

When I look at the statements above, I do not see a claim that we can use scientific methodology to arrive at an understanding of god. I only see a claim that scientific conclusions can be used to inform theological arguments. I don't see a problem with that.

Well I do

[JimL]

So, theological "truths" (if there is such a thing) are not arrived at in a vacuum. Every theological work I have ever read is grounded in our experience as humans on this planet. They make reference to the wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity, the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth, and so forth. They draw on archaeology, history, biology, and so forth. I think there is a difference between using what we know about the universe and ourselves to arrive at "theological truths," and attempting to use the scientific method to prove god exists. The former is perfectly reasonable. The latter is unreasonable. By definition, god belongs to the realm of the "supernatural" and "spiritual." I know of no way to apply scientific procedures to explore that realm. That is why creationism cannot be a science - and must be a theology. The same with so-called "intelligent design" (creationism in a new suit).

When I look at the statements above, I do not see a claim that we can use scientific methodology to arrive at an understanding of god. I only see a claim that scientific conclusions can be used to inform theological arguments. I don't see a problem with that.

The problem is that there is no, and never has been any, reasonable argument to posit the existence of a supernatural realm, or a creator god. The wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity is not evidence of a god, or creation, and so called historical reality is fabled by memory and deceit. Theological beliefs are not based on what we know, they are based on not knowing. The BB theory did give theists, at long last, and argument, or so they believed, for a beginning to the universe, and therefore to the possibility of creation, but again, the only difference between the beginning, or birth, of this universe, as far as we know, and the birth of anything else, is that we have no obsevable access to the source. To posit a supernatural realm with a creator god is pure fantasy.

[carpedm9587]

Well I do

I did not say that all such uses are valid, Tass, or that all such arguments are well structured. I simply said there is nothing inherently wrong about using information about the world around us to inform a theological discussion. There is no reason to exempt science. If it is valid to point to historical documents to show that Jesus existed and make the claim that he is who he said he is, then there is no reason why one cannot point to the conclusions of science to make other theological claims. Of course, those claims will only be as strong as the strength of the scientific claims themselves. If you rest your theology on the Big Bang and the cyclic universe is shown to be the accurate model, then the theology will crumble.

[carpedm9587]

The problem is that there is no, and never has been any, reasonable argument to posit the existence of a supernatural realm, or a creator god. The wonder of the universe, the nature of humanity is not evidence of a god, or creation, and so called historical reality is fabled by memory and deceit. Theological beliefs are not based on what we know, they are based on not knowing. The BB theory did give theists, at long last, and argument, or so they believed, for a beginning to the universe, and therefore to the possibility of creation, but again, the only difference between the beginning, or birth, of this universe, as far as we know, and the birth of anything else, is that we have no observable access to the source. To posit a supernatural realm with a creator god is pure fantasy.

IMO, you are making the same mistake Sparko makes so often. The difficulty with explain the origins of the universe scientifically does create an opening for an argument for god. Given that we cannot frame a scientifically sound hypothesis for the origins because we cannot find a hypothesis that is falsifiable, that puts the claim "god did it" on an equal footing with multiverses, some universe-spawning "soup," or ex nihilo origination. It may not be evidence you accept (I certainly don't). It may not be good evidence - but it is evidence. And there are many arguments for the existence of god that are perfectly reasonable, assuming you accept their premises. I do not accept their premises, so I do not accept their conclusions. But the arguments are well structured and meet all of the criteria for "reasonable."

Christianity is a historical seedbed for many of the greatest thinkers in human history. These were not stupid people. They were profound thinkers who sought to explain how the cosmos works from a theological perspective. That I think some of their conclusions were wrong does not undermine the value of their contributions to humanity, IMO. Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther, and many of the greatest philosophers we have known arose from a Christian tradition.

[shunyadragon]

IMO, you are making the same mistake Sparko makes so often. The difficulty with explain the origins of the universe scientifically does create an opening for an argument for god. Given that we cannot frame a scientifically sound hypothesis for the origins because we cannot find a hypothesis that is falsifiable, that puts the claim "god did it" on an equal footing with multiverses, some universe-spawning "soup," or ex nihilo origination. It may not be evidence you accept (I certainly don't). It may not be good evidence - but it is evidence. And there are many arguments for the existence of god that are perfectly reasonable, assuming you accept their premises. I do not accept their premises, so I do not accept their conclusions. But the arguments are well structured and meet all of the criteria for "reasonable."

Christianity is a historical seedbed for many of the greatest thinkers in human history. These were not stupid people. They were profound thinkers who sought to explain how the cosmos works from a theological perspective. That I think some of their conclusions were wrong does not undermine the value of their contributions to humanity, IMO. Aquinas, Augustine, Martin Luther, and many of the greatest philosophers we have known arose from a Christian tradition.

This is where I am with Tassman and JimL, and disagree completely with you. Even though I believe in God I consider the above bordering on advocating an egregious misuse of science. There are absolutely no 'findings' of science nor 'evidence' that may be used legitimately in theological arguments as above. The bold above is a severe problem. The structure of arguments does not justify their value, and citing outdated theologians as remotely meaningful in arguments is meaningless. At best these arguments are intensely circular and arguing from ignorance.

My previous hopes we agree on certain points no longer stands since you have made your view with more clarity.

[carpedm9587]

This is where I am with Tassman and JimL, and disagree completely with you. Even though I believe in God I consider the above bordering on advocating an egregious misuse of science. There are absolutely no 'findings' of science nor 'evidence' that may be used legitimately in theological arguments as above. The bold above is a severe problem. The structure of arguments does not justify their value, and citing outdated theologians as remotely meaningful in arguments is meaningless. At best these arguments are intensely circular and arguing from ignorance.

My previous hopes we agree on certain points no longer stands since you have made your view with more clarity.

It appears we also disagree on the meaning of the term "reasonable." The dictionary definition is: "having sound judgment; fair and sensible." I focus on the words "sound" and "sensible." A sound argument is one that adheres to the syllogistic form. Most of the arguments for god from the history of religion are perfectly sound, ergo they are reasonable (i.e., they are rooted in reason). They are based, however, in premises I do not find to be true, so the arguments are not valid and the conclusions are not necessarily true. Ergo, the arguments do not prove what they set out to prove because of incorrect premises.

That is not all of them, of course. Some of the arguments ARE unsound and so are unreasonable. That is how I am using the terminology.

Atheists, I find, tend to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Christianity (and other religions) have made significant contributions to human society. They have also have contributed significant ills. I find it important to recognize both. I find that many atheists are so committed to tearing down religions, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the good at the same time that they are disagreeing with some of the principles and rejecting the bad.

[shunyadragon]

It appears we also disagree on the meaning of the term "reasonable." The dictionary definition is: "having sound judgment; fair and sensible." I focus on the words "sound" and "sensible." A sound argument is one that adheres to the syllogistic form. Most of the arguments for god from the history of religion are perfectly sound, ergo they are reasonable (i.e., they are rooted in reason). They are based, however, in premises I do not find to be true, so the arguments are not valid and the conclusions are not necessarily true. Ergo, the arguments do not prove what they set out to prove because of incorrect premises.

That is not all of them, of course. Some of the arguments ARE unsound and so are unreasonable. That is how I am using the terminology.

Atheists, I find, tend to want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Christianity (and other religions) have made significant contributions to human society. They have also have contributed significant ills. I find it important to recognize both. I find that many atheists are so committed to tearing down religions, they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the good at the same time that they are disagreeing with some of the principles and rejecting the bad.

No, I do not consider these arguments no longer 'sound,' 'reasonable' nor sensible, primarily, because there assumptions were based presumptions of the existence of God, argument from ignorance, and out dated science and math. Unfortunately contemporary apologists have not changed in the past 500 years at least.

[carpedm9587]

No, I do not consider these arguments no longer 'sound,' 'reasonable' nor sensible, primarily, because there assumptions were based presumptions of the existence of God, argument from ignorance, and out dated science and math. Unfortunately contemporary apologists have not changed in the past 500 years at least.

I find your use of "sound" is as irregular as your use of "scientific hypothesis." It does not help a conversation if you redefine terms on the fly. In formal logic, "sound" has a very particular meaning, and it accurately applies to many of the proofs for the existence of god. They are not valid (if I thought they were, I wouldn't be atheist), but most of them are sound.

I think you are also perhaps not familiar with the world of Christian theology, philosophy, and science. You should read some of the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, John Locke, William Craig, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Blaise Pascal, to name just a few. And the list of Christians who have made substantive contributions to science is impressive as well.

[shunyadragon]

I find your use of "sound" is as irregular as your use of "scientific hypothesis." It does not help a conversation if you redefine terms on the fly. In formal logic, "sound" has a very particular meaning, and it accurately applies to many of the proofs for the existence of god. They are not valid (if I thought they were, I wouldn't be atheist), but most of them are sound.

I think you are also perhaps not familiar with the world of Christian theology, philosophy, and science. You should read some of the writings of Teilhard de Chardin, John Locke, William Craig, Rene Descartes, Francis Bacon, and Blaise Pascal, to name just a few. And the list of Christians who have made substantive contributions to science is impressive as well.

The 'soundness' of an argument depends on the premises being valid and true. Scientific 'findings' and evidence are not 'true' in terms being premises legitimately applicable to theological arguments, because they do cannot apply. I do not consider the math of infinities used by apologists as 'true and valid' as premises for their theological arguments. Also an argument can be 'structurally valid,' but demonstrably wrong' by the misuse of science.

For example in this thread. The claim; 'Current science considers the universe to have a beginning' is a valid scientific 'finding' to apply to theological argument. This is what I call a 'foggy true premise.' Of course many, but not all, scientists consider our universe to have a beginning, and it is not true in the context of the claim made by apologists, and the misuse of this premise would make the argument invalid or at minimum demonstrably false,

A premise being independently 'true' of its own, scientific 'findings' and evidence,' does not translate to a premise being 'true' as applied to a theological question nor argument. This application is the misuse of science, and invalid. Another way of looking at it is the misuse of scientific 'findings' and evidence in theological arguments 'does not follow . . .' therefore non sequitur .

Source: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/281208/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sound-argument-and-a-valid-argument

What is the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument?

In my notes, these are the definitions of a valid argument

An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true. An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument,

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.

© Copyright Original Source

I have of course, read all of the above. I will exclude William Craig as having no contribution to science, theology nor philosophy. Making significant contributions to science has absolutely nothing to do with the misuse of scientific 'findings' to support or justify theistic arguments for the existence of God as William Crag does.

[carpedm9587]

The 'soundness' of an argument depends on the premises being valid and true. Scientific 'findings' and evidence are not 'true' in terms being premises legitimately applicable to theological arguments, because they do cannot apply. I do not consider the math of infinities used by apologists as 'true and valid' as premises for their theological arguments. Also an argument can be 'structurally valid,' but demonstrably wrong' by the misuse of science.

For example in this thread. The claim; 'Current science considers the universe to have a beginning' is a valid scientific 'finding' to apply to theological argument. This is what I call a 'foggy true premise.' Of course many, but not all, scientists consider our universe to have a beginning, and it is not true in the context of the claim made by apologists, and the misuse of this premise would make the argument invalid or at minimum demonstrably false,

A premise being independently 'true' of its own, scientific 'findings' and evidence,' does not translate to a premise being 'true' as applied to a theological question nor argument. This application is the misuse of science, and invalid. Another way of looking at it is the misuse of scientific 'findings' and evidence in theological arguments 'does not follow . . .' therefore non sequitur .

Source: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/281208/what-is-the-difference-between-a-sound-argument-and-a-valid-argument

What is the difference between a sound argument and a valid argument?

In my notes, these are the definitions of a valid argument

An argument form is valid if and only if whenever the premises are all true, then conclusion is true. An argument is valid if its argument form is valid.

For a sound argument,

An argument is sound if and only if it is valid and all its premises are true.

© Copyright Original Source

I have of course, read all of the above. I will exclude William Craig as having no contribution to science, theology nor philosophy. Making significant contributions to science has absolutely nothing to do with the misuse of scientific 'findings' to support or justify theistic arguments for the existence of God as William Crag does.

Yeah... - I reversed "sound" and "valid." It's been too many years since I waded into formal logic. I should have checked my terms before writing my posts. So my previous posts should have said, "most of the Christian arguments for god are valid - but they are not sound."

Good catch..