Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

[otseng]

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538

[otseng]

You are proposing two things:
1) The universe went from not existing to existing (A flagrant violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics).

Actually, any naturalistic explanation is a violation of the first law of thermo. When God created the universe, God was not bound by pre-existing laws (including the laws of thermo), because laws that apply to the universe did not exist. When I claim that God created the universe, that includes the laws that govern the universe.

I must assume that justification for this assertion is forthcoming. I understand that you want to first address the preliminary notion that the universe began to exist, but evidence for intelligent agency will have to be presented at some point, because it certainly hasn't been presented yet.

Yes, I will argue later that the creator is intelligent. For now, I would say that anyone who is capable of creating a universe must be very smart.

Also, could you confirm that you hold the position that the universe went from non-existing to existing?

Yes, I claim this. You don't?

No. I do not claim this. For matter/energy to go from non-existing to existing is an egregious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Mind you, I am not asserting that the universe did NOT begin to exist. I am just saying that at our current level of knowledge, the hypothesis that energy/matter came into existence faces the insurmountable problem of conflicting with the laws of physics. Energy/matter CANNOT be created or destroyed.

This reveals the internal contradiction in naturalistic explanations. I agree with you that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed under known laws of science. Yet, science also says that the universe began to exist. Since there is a logical contradiction here, it shows that naturalistic explanations are inconsistent.

In an environment where time does not exist, the answer "an instant" and the answer "for eternity" are both equally true, equally false, equally meaningless.

The statement "equally true, equally false, equally meaningless" makes no sense logically. You can perhaps say "equally meaningless", but you cannot say "equally true, equally false".

We do not know much about the origin of the universe. But we know for SURE that Gravitational Time Dilation is a fact.

Yes, I know that gravitational time dilation is a fact. But, as you admit, "we do not know much about the origin of the universe."

I will add something else here. I will make the claim that there will never be a viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. And even further, if such an explanation is found, it would disprove the existence of a creator God.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. And it renders statements about "matter/energy coming into existence" impossible.

As a corollary, it renders any naturalistic explanation impossible.

1) Big Bounce. The expansion of the universe is the direct result of the compression of a previous universe, which in turn had once upon a time exploded from a highly compressed state which had been the result of a compression of a previous universe.

Cyclical models are not viable.

"Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_f ... e_universe

You objection is out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce ... the_theory

As the article notes, "This work is still in its early stages and very speculative."

There is far from a consensus in the scientific community that the Big Bounce theory is not viable.

Sure, there could exist a few people that hold to it. But, the main idea is that an eternally cyclic universe violates the second law of thermo. No processes can decrease entropy. So, with each bounce, the amount of usable energy decreases. Eventually, entropy will be at its maximum point and no more work can be done. The universe would be dead and stop oscillating.

If the entire universe was condensed into a single point (no volume), and time would stop, then what caused the time to start?

Uncaused random quantum fluctuation.

I do not see the relationship. How would a quantum fluctuation cause time to start?

If gravitational field strength was infinite, then how could the universe expand from the singularity?

I'm not sure.

And from what I can tell, nobody else does either.

You're thinking in pre-Einstenian terms again. If time doesn't exist, an "infinite amount of time" is the same as an instant.

Even in an Einsteinian model, it still does not make sense. One cannot say an infinite amount of time can be the same as a finite amount of time.

I assume you mean that gravity is energy that can cancel out other forms of energy. Please present evidence where gravity can join with other forms of energy to nullify each other.

I'm sorry Otseng, but here you are displaying lack of knowledge of basic classical physics.

Asking you to present evidence is not "displaying lack of knowledge" on my part.

I give you my word that the notion that gravitational (potential) energy has negative value (as opposed to matter and other forms of energy which have positive values) is completely uncontroversial.

You giving me your word is not providing evidence. If it is so uncontroversial, it should be easy to present the evidence.

The controversial part is that it is asserted that the total positive energy (which definitely exists) and the total negative energy (which definitely exists) are equal in value, resulting in a net zero-energy-universe.

It certainly is controversial.

I don't want to contaminate the debate by turning it into a lecture on classical physics.

You don't have to turn anything into a lecture, just present the evidence.

I recommend that you simply google "classical physics" or "potential energy" and educate yourself on the matter. Id be happy to assist you through PM, but I'd rather not pollute the debate by introducing a topic that is simply not open to debate.

If you make a claim in this thread, then it's entirely reasonable for me to ask you to back the claim and for you to present the evidence here.

If we cannot reasonably conclude that the universe began to exist, then the whole part about intelligence being involved is a moot point.

If it can be shown that the universe is eternal, then it disproves God. This is why scientists in the past were so adamant on an eternal universe -- it affirmed a naturalistic view of the universe. They also realized that if the universe was temporal, then it leaves room for God, as I mentioned about Fred Hoyle.

In order to reasonably conclude that the universe began to exist, you have to first disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics, which makes the proposition impossible, and you then have to disprove Einstenian Relativity, which makes the proposition meaningless. Either disprove these scientific facts, or find a way to reconcile your proposition with these facts which squarely contradict it.

All this is true assuming that naturalism is correct.

Once you've successfully established that it's reasonable to assume the universe began to exist, we will be ready to discuss the evidence for the cause of this transition from non-existence to existence was an intelligent entity.

Let me ask you a question. How old is the universe?

If "the universe began to exist" is part of Explanation A, then it is NOT supported by logic and evidence at all. Thermodynamics and Relativity squarely conflict with Explanation A.

The laws of thermo and relatively only describe our universe. They are not some overarching principles that constrains even what God can do. God created the universe, including the laws that govern the universe.

Other explanations, such as cyclical universes, zero-energy-universe, 4D black hole models, etc, certainly do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems, and thus fail to meet the bar for acceptance in the very strict world of science.

OK, good. We can then reject those and drop discussions on those.

The bottom line is that exploring and speculating about circumstances beyond the event horizon is very very difficult.

That is true.

The truth is that as of right now we simply do not know enough about the early universe to assert the validity of any model with any reasonable amount of confidence.

That is also true.

And this is all before we even get into the mountains of problems involved with positing an intelligence existing in a pre-big-bang environment.

Such as?

Hey Otseng, just a quick note.

In this post on a head-to-head debate with McCulloch on a very similar topic to our current one, you write this:

That is why I try to be careful to not use phrases such as "before the Big Bang". I agree that there is no such thing as a "before" if spacetime does not even exist.

This statement, that I agree with 100%, seems to be in conflict with some of the statements you've made so far in our exchange, such as this:

How long has the universe existed being very very small? If it's not eternally in the past, then it must've been some finite time in the past. If it's a finite point in the past, then the universe had a beginning in time.

I've tried to be careful in this thread as well. And I see no conflict with what I said above.

Here's a way of thinking about it. The deistic God could be in another spacetime other than ours. Our reference time frame is meaningless in another spacetime. One cannot use any clock/calendar in universe A that would apply to universe B.

Now, I'm not asserting that God is actually in another spacetime, but the idea is that God is not in our spacetime. Anything that God does outside of our spacetime cannot be temporally referenced by our concept of time.

[no evidence no belief]

Hey Otseng,
I'm concerned that we are straying away from the central questions. I don't know if segmenting each other's statements and offering one line answers to one line fragments of our opponent's previous remarks is productive. I think it's dispersive.

As much as circumstances allow, I would like to keep things focused and targeted on the general principle you outlined in your initial post.

"It's reasonable to tentatively believe an explanation if the evidence and logical arguments in favor of it are stronger than the evidence and logical arguments in favor of competing explanations." (I'm paraphrasing).

We agree on this 100%. So I think we should just get to it.

The questions is how did the universe come to be.

The explanation that you're trying to show is reasonable to believe, is this: An intelligent agency created it.

Alternative explanations range from the very vague, such as these:
- A non-intelligent cause created it
- An intelligent agency caused something which in turn caused the universe.
- A non-intelligent entity caused it to transition from one type of existence to another
- An intelligent agency caused it to transition from one type of existence to another
- It always existed

Other alternatives are more specific, and have some mathematical, empirical data on which they are based:
- Big bounce theory
- Zero-energy-universe
- Multiverse
- 4-dimensional star membrane theory
- These ones.
- [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2% ... king_state] This one [url]
and more

It seems to me that the next step is simply to present all the evidence and logical arguments available to support your explanation. If the mathematical models constructed on the basis of your explanation allow you to account for, and match with, more of the measurable empirical data, or if by any other discrete measure you can show that there is more evidence and logic in support of your explanation than in support of others, then you will have successfully defended the deist position. Otherwise you will not have.

Fair?

[otseng]

I'm concerned that we are straying away from the central questions. I don't know if segmenting each other statements and offering one line answers to one line fragments of our opponent's previous remarks is productive. I think it's dispersive.

I don't see really how we've strayed too far from the topic. Though I do admit that we're getting into more about how the debate should proceed, rather than actually debating the topic.

As for breaking up posts and addressing individual parts, this is normal for this forum (and all other forums), so I don't really see how it is unproductive.

The questions is how did the universe come to be.

The explanation that you're trying to show is reasonable to believe, is this: An intelligent agency created it.

Alternative explanations range from the very vague, such as these:
- A non-intelligent cause created it
- An intelligent agency caused something which in turn caused the universe.
- A non-intelligent entity caused it to transition from one type of existence to another
- An intelligent agency caused it to transition from one type of existence to another
- It always existed

From all our experience, we only see intelligent agents having the capability of creating novel and complex things. We never experience non-intelligent agents with the ability to create, esp from nothing. So, a non-intelligent agent does not conform to what we experience to be true.

Here's an example. Suppose we receive a signal from outer space of prime numbers. We would automatically deduce that an intelligent agent was behind it. Nobody would be arguing that it came from a non-intelligent agent.

It could be that the intelligent agent created something to create the universe. But, ultimately, the intelligent agent created the universe, whether directly or indirectly. We can at least attribute responsibility of the creation of the universe to the intelligent agent.

Other alternatives are more specific, and have some mathematical, empirical data on which they are based:
- Big bounce theory
- Zero-energy-universe
- Multiverse
- 4-dimensional star membrane theory

You already stated that these "do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems."

- This one

In regards to the Hartle–Hawking state model, it involves the use of imaginary time. This concept is introduced to allow for the removal of absolute time 0. But, imaginary time has no basis in observed reality.

Hawking states:

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time

Here, he implies that there is no distinction between what we can observe and what is in our mind. Sure, we can imagine things in our mind, but that does not show that they correspond with actual reality.

If the mathematical models constructed on the basis of your explanation allow you to account for and match with more of the measurable empirical data, or if by any other discrete measure you can show that there is more evidence and logic in support of your explanation than in support of others, then you will have successfully defended the deist position. Otherwise you will not have.

Not all explanations requires a mathematical basis. It certainly can include it, but it does not require it. There are other tests to see if a model is tenable. Does it conform with the facts and laws? Does it conform to logic? Is it consistent with what we know to be true? Is it falsifiable? Is it internal consistent? So, even if something has a mathematical basis, if it does not fulfill these, it is not a very viable explanation.

[no evidence no belief]

Hi Otseng I will address two points you made here

This one:

From all our experience, we only see intelligent agents having the capability of creating novel and complex things. We never experience non-intelligent agents with the ability to create, esp from nothing. So, a non-intelligent agent does not conform to what we experience to be true.

And this one:

You already stated that [alternative explanations] "do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems."

In the first quote, you make an argument in support of the proposition that an intelligent agency created the universe, in the second, you attack my attempt to demonstrate that your proposed explanation is no more valid than alternatives.

So, I will discuss your defense of your own explanation first.

Your argument can be put in syllogism form:

1) Every instance of X seems to be caused by Y
2) Z is an instance of X
3) One cannot be 100% sure, but it's reasonable to assume that Z was caused by Y.

Obviously this is not an airtight argument (hence my phrasing "one cannot be 100% sure), but I would be the first to admit that prima facie responding to your argument would seem problematic if the premises were true. Thankfully for me, they are not.

Just so we are on the same page, you say that, quote, "only" intelligent agents can create complex stuff, and we, quote, "never" see non-intelligent agents create complex stuff. So, if I can indicate one example of complexity arising in the absence of an intelligent agency, I will have successfully refuted your argument, and you will be back to square one, as far as demonstrating that it's more reasonable to believe in an intelligent creator than alternative explanations.

Evolution by natural selection.

Irrefutable fact. Extraordinarily novel and complex stuff (the most complex stuff in the universe, as far as we know) coming into existence exclusively though non-intelligent processes. Fact backed by overwhelmingly strong independent streams of empirical evidence. you can literally look and see evolution happening before your very eyes.

Case closed.

But just to show that it's not an anomaly, in under 120 seconds, Dan Dennett will give you three more examples of novelty and complexity in the absence of intelligence. Check this video. Skip to minute 2.

In light of the new facts that I have introduced, we can now reformulate your syllogism.

1) There seem to be instances of X being caused by Y, but also instances of X being caused by NOT-Y
2) Z is an instance of X
3) There is absolutely no reason to assume Z was caused by Y as opposed to being caused by NOT-Y

Please present your next evidence/argument, because I think it's inescapable that this one has been debunked (in one of the three ways it can be debunked, but I don't need to get into the other two).




Next, I would like to address your criticism of my alternative explanations. Again:

You already stated that [alternative explanations] "do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems."

I freely admit that, unlike gravity, evolution, the earth being a globe, "we get two apples in a basket if we already have an apple in the basket and add another apple", etc, we indeed do not have sufficient empirical backing and do not adequately dispense of internal problems of any of the universe's origin hypotheses. If we did, we wouldn't call them hypotheses, we would call them facts, like we do for gravity, evolution, the earth being a globe, etc.

But even if we are not certain enough of something to call it a fact, we can know enough to reasonably assess the likelihood of one hypothesis being accurate as opposed to a competing hypothesis.

For example if you said "I just bought a lottery ticket", both the "that's the winning ticket" hypothesis and the "that's not the winning ticket" hypothesis do NOT have sufficient empirical backing to conclude they are true, but it's certainly reasonable to claim that hypothesis 2 is more reasonable than hypothesis 1.

Yes, I admit we do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems, for the alternative explanations I proposed. But they do have SOME empirical backing and dispense of SOME of their internal problems. To the contrary, I thought it was a given not even needing mentioning, that neither does your proposed explanation have sufficient empirical backing, nor can you dispense with its internal problems. In fact, I dare say you have ZERO empirical evidence to back up your claim (present it if I'm wrong, please), and we've already started talking about some of its internal problems.


Your mission is to present a case for Explanation A - that an intelligent agency created the universe - and to demonstrate that evidence and logic support it to a greater degree than other explanations. You have attempted here to do so by providing a direct argument for Explanation A, which I refuted quite completely, and by pointing to limitations in the alternative explanations, a pointless endeavor because those same limitations are even more problematic in Explanation A than in the alternatives.

By my tracking you have presented zero evidence and zero logical argument for Explanation A. Please present more, correct me if you disagree with my tracking, or concede.

[otseng]

Just so we are on the same page, you say that, quote, "only" intelligent agents can create complex stuff, and we, quote, "never" see non-intelligent agents create complex stuff.

I said only intelligent agents can create novel and complex things, not just simply complex things. I'd rather not get into debating evolution right now. We can perhaps debate this more later, but I want to just note that evolution is unable to account for the creation of something from nothing. Even if I grant that it can create complexity (which actually I do not believe it can account for), it cannot create something ex nihilo, which is what we are discussing.

1) There seem to be instances of X being caused by Y, but also instances of X being caused by NOT-Y
2) Z is an instance of X
3) There is absolutely no reason to assume Z was caused by Y as opposed to being caused by NOT-Y[

So, are you saying that evolution is a possible explanation for the causation of the universe?

Yes, I admit we do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems, for the alternative explanations I proposed. But they do have SOME empirical backing and dispense of SOME of their internal problems.

What are the some empirical backing that you are speaking of?

As for internal problems, it cannot be easily dismissed. As you've noted earlier,

For matter/energy to go from non-existing to existing is an egregious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. And it renders statements about "matter/energy coming into existence" impossible.

Unless one posits an eternal universe, everything else would violate the first law of thermo.

In fact, I dare say you have ZERO empirical evidence to back up your claim (present it if I'm wrong, please), and we've already started talking about some of its internal problems.

The only evidence I've provided is that there is a beginning to the universe.

Now, if you're asking me to provide empirical evidence like God's height, color, mass, or a picture of it, then no, I'm not able to provide that.

Your mission is to present a case for Explanation A - that an intelligent agency created the universe - and to demonstrate that evidence and logic support it to a greater degree than other explanations.

I've demonstrated that there are internal contradictions with naturalistic explanations. What internal contradictions are there with a deistic god?

By my tracking you have presented zero evidence and zero logical argument for Explanation A. Please present more, correct me if you disagree with my tracking, or concede.

You are shifting the goalposts and requiring that I provide direct evidence for a deistic god. It was never a necessity for this thread. What we did both agree to is to look at all the possible explanations for something and see which explanation is the most viable.

All naturalistic explanations are fraught with inconsistencies and violations of laws that it asserts. Naturalistic models violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. Time is claimed to be both infinite and finite, which is a violation of logic. A claim cannot even be made if the universe began to exist or did not begin to exist because either scenario has problems. If I ask a simple question as how old the universe is, you have yet to even answer that. I suspect because it's a catch 22. If you answer the universe is finite, you run into problems. If you answer the universe is infinitely old, you also run into problems.

Really, the only thing that can be said is "we do not know much about the origin of the universe." In effect, there is no viable naturalistic explanation. I see no reason for me to concede.

[no evidence no belief]

Just so we are on the same page, you say that, quote, "only" intelligent agents can create complex stuff, and we, quote, "never" see non-intelligent agents create complex stuff.

I said only intelligent agents can create novel and complex things, not just simply complex things. I'd rather not get into debating evolution right now. We can perhaps debate this more later, but I want to just note that evolution is unable to account for the creation of something from nothing. Even if I grant that it can create complexity (which actually I do not believe it can account for)

We will definitely need to get into that at some point. But for right now, I would propose that if to support an argument, one of us cites a scientific fact that pretty much every expert in the world agrees is backed by overwhelming empirical evidence, which either of us can easily verify personally and directly to be true, which is currently used in medicine to save lives and which if the fact were untrue then those lives could not be saved, then it's reasonable to assume that the point has been successfully made.

, it cannot create something ex nihilo, which is what we are discussing.

Yes, I noticed you mentioned it in passing in the previous post, and was getting ready to get into that.

By my book, you've been unable to establish that the universe began to exist. You've just asserted it.

Now, by alleging that the universe came into existence from nothing, you're adding a whole new dimension to the speculative nature of your assertion.

Please provide evidence that it's even possible for anything to come into existence from nothing. Please define nothing!

1) There seem to be instances of X being caused by Y, but also instances of X being caused by NOT-Y
2) Z is an instance of X
3) There is absolutely no reason to assume Z was caused by Y as opposed to being caused by NOT-Y[

So, are you saying that evolution is a possible explanation for the causation of the universe?

Of course not. You're saying that we've never seen novelty/complexity arise in the absence of intelligence agency and that therefore it's unreasonable to assume that the universe itself arose from non-intelligent agency.

I simply point out that the first premise of your argument is demonstrably false. And evolution isn't even the only example.

Yes, I admit we do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems, for the alternative explanations I proposed. But they do have SOME empirical backing and dispense of SOME of their internal problems.

What are the some empirical backing that you are speaking of?

As for internal problems, it cannot be easily dismissed. As you've noted earlier,

For matter/energy to go from non-existing to existing is an egregious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. And it renders statements about "matter/energy coming into existence" impossible.

Unless one posits an eternal universe, everything else would violate the first law of thermo.

False. At a singularity time stops, hence it doesn't need to be eternal to not have a beginning. In a different section you ask for empirical evidence.

Well, here is some empirical evidence that Relativity is real.

In fact, I dare say you have ZERO empirical evidence to back up your claim (present it if I'm wrong, please), and we've already started talking about some of its internal problems.

The only evidence I've provided is that there is a beginning to the universe.

That the universe began to exist is speculation, not evidence.

You cannot use speculation as evidence in support of more speculation.

Now, if you're asking me to provide empirical evidence like God's height, color, mass, or a picture of it, then no, I'm not able to provide that.

That's a strawman argument. By pointing to absurd examples of empirical evidence, you attempt to diminish the validity of a request for empirical evidence.

All of the scientific hypotheses are based on some empirical evidence, or on some rigorous mathematical models. The empirical evidence is thin for all of them, I grant you that, but there is some. It's not just speculation, based on speculation.

Your mission is to present a case for Explanation A - that an intelligent agency created the universe - and to demonstrate that evidence and logic support it to a greater degree than other explanations.

I've demonstrated that there are internal contradictions with naturalistic explanations. What internal contradictions are there with a deistic god?

That is a false question. You have not yet defined any attributes of this god, nor described the mechanism by which he would have created the universe. You could choose to define this deistic god as "an intelligent entity with the power to create, and without internal contradictions" and you could define the way he caused the universe to exist as "a mechanism without any internal contradictions". Of course, no internal contradictions with the deistic god have come up yet, you've done nothing other than assert he exists and that he has no internal contradictions! Please list all the internal contradictions with the invisible dragon in my basement. It has 4 attributes: It exists, it's intelligent, it has the power to create, and it has no internal contradictions. Come on!

By my tracking you have presented zero evidence and zero logical argument for Explanation A. Please present more, correct me if you disagree with my tracking, or concede.

You are shifting the goalposts and requiring that I provide direct evidence for a deistic god. It was never a necessity for this thread. What we did both agree to is to look at all the possible explanations for something and see which explanation is the most viable.

I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence.

Nonetheless, remember the general principle you proposed. In order for your explanation to be considered more credible than the alternatives, it must be supported by better evidence. If I can provide direct evidence for an alternative explanation, you will not necessarily have to provide direct evidence for yours, but your indirect evidence will have to be strong enough to surpass the direct evidence I will have presented.

All naturalistic explanations are fraught with inconsistencies and violations of laws that it asserts.

That's the downside to attempting to find real answers to very difficult questions. Once you start clearly defining the various components of your deistic explanation, and once you start ensuring that each of those definitions is grounded in some manifest and measurable attribute of the observable world, you will find inconsistencies and violations of laws in your explanation too. Or you will not, in which case you will have won the argument. I anxiously await those clear definitions grounded on manifest reality.

Naturalistic models violate either the First or Second Law of Thermodynamics. Time is claimed to be both infinite and finite, which is a violation of logic.

It would seem a violation of logic to say that you can walk in one direction for eternity on top of an object of finite surface area, and never reach the edge. But that's exactly what you can do on top of a spherical planet. Similarly, it would seem a contradiction that something can have no beginning and yet not be eternal, but that's exactly what has been measured to be the case in the presence of sufficiently strong gravitational fields. That's not a hypothesis. That's a fact.

A claim cannot even be made if the universe began to exist or did not begin to exist because either scenario has problems.

There are problems with most origin models, but the apparent contradiction you outline above is not one of them. Relativity takes care of that.

If I ask a simple question as how old the universe is, you have yet to even answer that.

To ask how old the universe is, is like asking how close to the edge of the earth is New York City.

I suspect because it's a catch 22.

Only in pre-Einsteinian terms. Much like "the earth has no edge but is not infinite" was a catch 22 in pre earth-is-not-flat terms.

If you answer the universe is finite, you run into problems. If you answer the universe is infinitely old, you also run into problems.

If you answer that there is an edge of the earth, you run into problems. If you answer the earth is infinitely long, you run into problems.

The right answer is that 13.798 billion years elapsed since time started being a relevant concept.

Really, the only thing that can be said is "we do not know much about the origin of the universe." In effect, there is no viable naturalistic explanation. I see no reason for me to concede.

Surely you're not saying "I can think of no viable naturalistic explanation therefore God did it", right? At some point a caveman said that about thunder. I was kinda hoping we were past that.

Your inability to find a good explanation based on facts is sufficient reason for you to look harder. It's not sufficient reason to conclude that the only explanation you can think of must therefore be correct despite the lack of evidence for it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[no evidence no belief]

Dear Otseng,

In your first post you wrote this:

There is going to be a general principle that I will use to determine if an explanation is the most viable. If logic and evidence support explanation A and all other explanations do not have as much support, then it's reasonable to accept explanation A

I agreed.

You defined your "Explanation A" as this (I'm paraphrasing): The universe began to exist from nothing, due to the actions of an intelligent entity with the power to create.

I accepted your definition of "Explanation A", and as per your general principle above, I asked you to present evidence and logical argument in support of your claim.

Seven days, 16 posts and who knows how many thousands of words later, you write this:

The only evidence I've provided is that there is a beginning to the universe.

The first part of your claim is that there is a beginning to the universe. And you are using the notion that there is a beginning to the universe as evidence for the notion that there is a beginning to the universe.

Never mind that you provide zero evidence for the notions that this beginning of existence was ex nihilo and that an intelligent agency was involved, but you are using one of your own claims as evidence for one of your claims.

You can't do that, man!

Please Otseng, let's stick to the general principle you proposed. Please provide evidence for your claim, so that we can assess whether it's more convincing than the evidence for competing claims.

Specifically provide the following:

-Evidence for the first portion of your claim, that the universe began to exist.

- Please also define "nothing" and provide evidence that the universe didn't just begin to exist, but began to exist from "nothing".

- Lastly provide evidence that an intelligent entity played a part in all of this.

And please, whatever you do, do not use your own claims as evidence of your own claims!

[otseng]

We will definitely need to get into that at some point. But for right now, I would propose that if to support an argument, one of us cites a scientific fact that pretty much every expert in the world agrees is backed by overwhelming empirical evidence, which either of us can easily verify personally and directly to be true, which is currently used in medicine to save lives and which if the fact were untrue then those lives could not be saved, then it's reasonable to assume that the point has been successfully made.

Sure, we can discuss evolution later.

By my book, you've been unable to establish that the universe began to exist. You've just asserted it.

If you believe that people should accept evolution because pretty much every expert in the world accepts it, I found it surprising that you do not believe that the universe had a beginning, because pretty much every expert in the world accepts it.

Please provide evidence that it's even possible for anything to come into existence from nothing. Please define nothing!

"Nothing is a pronoun denoting the absence of anything. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness. In nontechnical uses, nothing denotes things lacking importance, interest, value, relevance, or significance. Nothingness is the state of being nothing, the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing

In the context of what we are discussing, it means the state where the entire universe did not exist.

So, are you saying that evolution is a possible explanation for the causation of the universe?

Of course not. You're saying that we've never seen novelty/complexity arise in the absence of intelligence agency and that therefore it's unreasonable to assume that the universe itself arose from non-intelligent agency.

Then what alternative explanation are you offering that entails a non-intelligent agency for the origin of the universe?

Unless one posits an eternal universe, everything else would violate the first law of thermo.

False. At a singularity time stops, hence it doesn't need to be eternal to not have a beginning.

What does it mean for time to stop? If time stops, then how can time even move forward? Can you point to any reference where it is theorized that time was in this stop mode during the Big Bang?

Well, here is some empirical evidence that Relativity is real.

I never said that relativity is not real.

That the universe began to exist is speculation, not evidence.

Speculation? Hardly. It is practically universally accepted that the universe had a beginning.

Now, if you're asking me to provide empirical evidence like God's height, color, mass, or a picture of it, then no, I'm not able to provide that.

That's a strawman argument. By pointing to absurd examples of empirical evidence, you attempt to diminish the validity of a request for empirical evidence.

Then what evidence are specifically asking for?

It's not just speculation, based on speculation.

Are you talking about the speculation that the universe had a beginning?

You have not yet defined any attributes of this god, nor described the mechanism by which he would have created the universe.

I do not need to define any attributes of god or even describe the mechanism.

Again, with the example of a signal from an extraterrestrial, it does not require knowledge of the attributes of ET do deduce that a signal came from an intelligent agent. It also does not require to know how ET sent the message. The signal alone is enough to conclude that other intelligent lifeforms exist.

Of course, no internal contradictions with the deistic god have come up yet, you've done nothing other than assert he exists and that he has no internal contradictions!

I assert that my explanation has no internal contradictions because you have not raised valid ones. With your explanations, I have raised internal contradictions with all the naturalistic explanations.

Please list all the internal contradictions with the invisible dragon in my basement. It has 4 attributes: It exists, it's intelligent, it has the power to create, and it has no internal contradictions. Come on!

Nobody is arguing for an invisible dragon in your basement. So, bringing that up is irrelevant.

By my tracking you have presented zero evidence and zero logical argument for Explanation A. Please present more, correct me if you disagree with my tracking, or concede.

You are shifting the goalposts and requiring that I provide direct evidence for a deistic god. It was never a necessity for this thread. What we did both agree to is to look at all the possible explanations for something and see which explanation is the most viable.

I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence.

Good. We agree then that I do not need to provide direct evidence.

Nonetheless, remember the general principle you proposed. In order for your explanation to be considered more credible than the alternatives, it must be supported by better evidence. If I can provide direct evidence for an alternative explanation, you will not necessarily have to provide direct evidence for yours, but your indirect evidence will have to be strong enough to surpass the direct evidence I will have presented.

Go ahead. But the bigger challenge is to remove the internal contradictions that I've already raised.

Once you start clearly defining the various components of your deistic explanation, and once you start ensuring that each of those definitions is grounded in some manifest and measurable attribute of the observable world, you will find inconsistencies and violations of laws in your explanation too. Or you will not, in which case you will have won the argument. I anxiously await those clear definitions grounded on manifest reality.

I suspect you have something in mind for the inconsistencies and violations for my explanation.

It would seem a violation of logic to say that you can walk in one direction for eternity on top of an object of finite surface area, and never reach the edge. But that's exactly what you can do on top of a spherical planet. Similarly, it would seem a contradiction that something can have no beginning and yet not be eternal, but that's exactly what has been measured to be the case in the presence of sufficiently strong gravitational fields. That's not a hypothesis. That's a fact.

Are you asserting that time wraps back on itself?

To ask how old the universe is, is like asking how close to the edge of the earth is New York City.

Really? How so?

The right answer is that 13.798 billion years elapsed since time started being a relevant concept.

I agree that billions years ago time started.

Surely you're not saying "I can think of no viable naturalistic explanation therefore God did it", right?

What I'm saying is, let's look at all the possible explanations and see which one is the most viable.

At some point a caveman said that about thunder. I was kinda hoping we were past that.

We are past that. Nobody is talking about thunder.

Your inability to find a good explanation based on facts is sufficient reason for you to look harder. It's not sufficient reason to conclude that the only explanation you can think of must therefore be correct despite the lack of evidence for it!

Sure, scientists can look as hard as they want. Again, my prediction is that no matter how hard they look, they will never find a naturalistic solution.

The only evidence I've provided is that there is a beginning to the universe.

The first part of your claim is that there is a beginning to the universe. And you are using the notion that there is a beginning to the universe as evidence for the notion that there is a beginning to the universe.

There being a beginning to the universe is so universally accepted among scientists that I'm surprised you don't accept this. You think I'm the only one to make this claim? But, if you really wish, I can provide evidence that the universe had a beginning.

[no evidence no belief]

Otseng,

In our very first exchange we agreed that claims must be supported by evidence.

You made a claim. Now support it with evidence!


Again, you claim is this: The universe began to exist ex nihilo and an intelligent agency was responsible for this event.


There are four elements to your claim you need to provide evidence for:

1) Provide evidence the universe began to exist

2) Provide evidence it began existing en nihilo

3) Provide evidence an intelligent entity outside the universe exists

4) Provide evidence it created the universe


If you do anything other than present this evidence, you will be violating the very "general principle" that you presented and I agreed should govern this debate.

[otseng]

In our very first exchange we agreed that claims must be supported by evidence.

Again, the only evidence that is presented is that the universe began to exist. Frankly, I'm surprised that you don't accept this. But, since you insist, I'll argue that the universe began to exist.

1) Provide evidence the universe began to exist
2) Provide evidence it began existing en nihilo

"According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"Physicists think that even time began with the big bang. Today, just about every scientist believes in the big bang model."
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~yukimoon/BigBang/

"The CMB had been predicted by a theory that few believed at the time called the Big Bang. This discovery was the first evidence that the Universe had a beginning."
http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm

"Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."
http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyberi ... nning.html

If all forms of matter and energy were formed at this instant, then it follows that the universe was formed ex nihilo. The point is that there was no pre-existing matter/energy in our universe for the Big Bang to arise from.

Now, it certainly is possible that there was pre-existing matter/energy from another universe. But from our perspective, it would appear to be ex nihilo. We cannot detect in any way energy or matter in another universe, so from our perspective it would be ex nihilo.

3) Provide evidence an intelligent entity outside the universe exists

I thought you already agreed that no direct evidence is required - "I'm sorry, did I say you need to provide direct evidence? If so I retract. In principle you shouldn't have to provide direct evidence."

4) Provide evidence it created the universe

Your shifting the goalpost again. As I stated, "it is only necessary to show that it is better than all competing alternative explanations." Since all naturalistic explanations have internal contradictions in them, and a deistic god does not have any, then on this fact alone it is better than naturalistic explanations.