Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

There are really only two choices: either the universe had a beginning, or it did not. Science backs the first option...

Except science would also back "oscillation" (thus the big bang could be the start of a cycle)

Well, scientists who think a cyclic universe/big bounce hypothesis is tenable, think Hawking points might be evidence, so yeah, "oscillation" is one idea that is taken seriously by some scientists.

Apparently, some think otherwise.

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin

[Immanuel Can]

"(thus the big bang could be the start of a cycle)

put a muffler on that Harley

-Imp

Don't do that; going bang is the one thing Harleys are good at. A 1948 Vincent Black Shadow is still a better motorbike than any Harley built before or since.

Question: What's the difference between a Harley and a Hoover?

Answer: Just the position of the dirt bag.

[Immanuel Can]

There are really only two choices: either the universe had a beginning, or it did not. Science backs the first option...

Except science would also back "oscillation" (thus the big bang could be the start of a cycle)

Well, again, as I said to Will...

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin

[Impenitent]

"(thus the big bang could be the start of a cycle)

put a muffler on that Harley

-Imp

Don't do that; going bang is the one thing Harleys are good at. A 1948 Vincent Black Shadow is still a better motorbike than any Harley built before or since.

never saw one, but they have a good reputation (for a defunct company)

I had a friend who only rode Nortons (35 years ago in Texas)

time flies

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

Just letting folks know I have neither died nor lost interest in these arguments. But may be absent a while.

As you should know, I am in the Ecocentric Alliance group and one of the people has a new book "in galley" made available for the entire group to read/comment. This isn't the earlier "peer review" reading during the editing stage when changes can be suggested. Quite reasonably the author did not ask either Penny or myself to be in that group (he knows we would be strongly opposed to lots) However it will be interesting to see how he makes the case that strong materialism is not necessarily nihilistic. << he''s not just atheist but against any form of spirituality/mysticism ---------- and we don't judge theism or spirituality/mysticism in terms of whether true but in terms of usefulness >>

This I Don’t Believe: A Fulfilling Life without Meaning By Robert Jensen will be out some time in the Fall. Not academic philosophy but popular philosophy like here.

[Will Bouwman]

Well, scientists who think a cyclic universe/big bounce hypothesis is tenable, think Hawking points might be evidence, so yeah, "oscillation" is one idea that is taken seriously by some scientists.

Apparently, some think otherwise.

As I said:

Science is done by a broad range of people with a spectrum of interests, opinions and even biases.

“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”

– Alexander Vilenkin

That is the Vilenkin quote creationists think supports their case. The Vilenkin quote they are less voluble about is this:
"What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed."

[Immanuel Can]

That is the Vilenkin quote creationists think supports their case. The Vilenkin quote they are less voluble about is this:
"What causes the universe to pop out of nothing? No cause is needed."

All I'm pointing out, Will, is that "what scientists believe" is a work-in-progress. Tomorrow, they will "believe" something different, plausibly. And there are almost no questions they find non-controversial, except that the scientific method itself is valuable in reforming poor hypotheses.

Anytime somebody says, "it's the science," it behoves us to drill down on questions like "which scientists," and "in what context," and "with what degree of evidence, proof and certainty." If COVID taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that people who invoke "the science" in this sort of blank and unexplained way, evidently hoping to end the argument thereby, are almost always bluffing.

[promethean75]

Red herring. That may be the case - what is true today will be scientifically false tomorrow - but in either case, having a wrong theory or not, there is no cause to include any Christian cosmology as a possible alternative. Christian cosmology could never be verified no matter how much knowledge was acquired because of the transcendental nature, the metaphysical nature, of its subject. Its biology is just another utterly unverifiable theory, too.... something posited to fill supposed gaps in the theory of evolution.

I say, sir, that you have no intellectual right to challenge the shortcomings of the scientific method from a christian position!

Are you seriously a covid denier, though? Like all those people on machines 'n shit... you think it was the dirty communists?

[Immanuel Can]

...there is no cause to include any Christian cosmology as a possible alternative.

Give your evidence for that claim.

[MikeNovack]

...there is no cause to include any Christian cosmology as a possible alternative.

Give your evidence for that claim.

Evidence would be easy. "Christian cosmology" makes no MATERIAL claims that could be subject to testing. This has nothing to do with "Christian cosmology" being right or wrong. It has to do with being in a different "domain".

However feel free to provide a counter example. What MATERIAL fact would show Christian cosmology true?

Come on IC, we can believe in gods. We can't prove them true in the material realm. They aren't IN the material domain.

[Immanuel Can]

...there is no cause to include any Christian cosmology as a possible alternative.

Give your evidence for that claim.

Evidence would be easy. "Christian cosmology" makes no MATERIAL claims that could be subject to testing.

That would be absence of evidence, which is never evidence. But the attempt to shift the burden of proof for Prom's claim is noted. There's no answer here to what I asked him.

But in point of fact, Christianity makes many claims that are subject to testing. Take the claim that "...in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." (Gen. 1). That's a claim that's actually true or actually false. And it's testable in terms of the observable universe that resulted, even if God had done no further self-revealing -- which, of course, He has.

And that's my present point: the observable universe is not consistent with a random product, but rather with a product of incredibly sophisticated and interrelated design. It's mathematically and empirically certain that it had to have a beginning, and we know that that which has a beginning has a cause. Moreover, the universe we find ourselves in shows all the marks of being produced by a super-intelligence, and is not consistent with any products we attempt to create by way of randomness. You, yourself are a demonstration of the sophistication and complexity of that design, if you would take stock of your own composition. So the evidence is abundant on every side, and it takes a huge feat of mental resistance not to notice it. That is what every culture in history has instinctively recognized.

That's a simple point to make and to support, but super-profound.

[MikeNovack]

But in point of fact, Christianity makes many claims that are subject to testing. Take the claim that "...in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." (Gen. 1). That's a claim that's actually true or actually false. And it's testable in terms of the observable universe that resulted, even if God had done no further self-revealing -- which, of course, He has.

You really don't seem to get it.

Just consider two competing claims of this sort.
A) The God as understood by Christians created the universe.
B) The Great Pink Unicorn created the universe.

WHAT aspect of the physical universe would you propose as a means to distinguish between those claims. What would be evidence?

[promethean75]

Yeah.... what Mike 'no slack' Novack said.

[Immanuel Can]

But in point of fact, Christianity makes many claims that are subject to testing. Take the claim that "...in the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth..." (Gen. 1). That's a claim that's actually true or actually false. And it's testable in terms of the observable universe that resulted, even if God had done no further self-revealing -- which, of course, He has.

You really don't seem to get it.

Just consider two competing claims of this sort.
A) The God as understood by Christians created the universe.
B) The Great Pink Unicorn created the universe.

WHAT aspect of the physical universe would you propose as a means to distinguish between those claims. What would be evidence?

That's actually not the rival hypothesis. The rival hypothesis is "Random chance created the universe." And when you realize that's the alternative...well, all the evidence goes one side.

[MikeNovack]

That's actually not the rival hypothesis. The rival hypothesis is "Random chance created the universe." And when you realize that's the alternative...well, all the evidence goes one side.

Oh you of little math.........

You CANNOT prove that any finite string with apparent pattern is not random. It would occur within a random string of length X with some probability Y. You can only make statements like "we have confidence level M that N is not random".

People usually fail to take this into account, especially in the social sciences. If twenty people publish papers, presenting conclusions based on the results of data/experiments with a 90% level of confidence (and THAT is high for social sciences) then the conclusions of at least a couple of the papers likely hogwash.

BUT-- back to your attempt to switcheroo (as usual). Sorry, your argument was that material evidence could be presented to demonstrate that your Christian perception of deity created the universe. Random s NOT the only alternative that. Another obviously distinct monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, etc. are ALL contenders for "something other than YOURs". You CAN'T pick and choose which I present and ask you for what MATERIAL evidence << thus saying "polytheism is incoherent" would NOT be evidence based on material reality >>