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

[no evidence no belief]

Similarly, intelligence is a function of computational output over time. Therefore it wouldn't be just physically impossible in a timeless environment, it would be logically impossible.

Likewise, you propose some process outside of our time devoid of intelligence. So, the same problem arises for you if we apply the concept of time to any concept we have, including intelligence.

False. Only things/objects/events that manifest themselves as variable X over time are impossible in the absence of time. Stuff like movement, acceleration, "cooling down", "heating up", thinking, walking, etc.

Things/objects/events which don't have time as an intrinsic core element of their existence, can most definitely exist in a timeless environment.

This is not speculation. This is a measurable fact. Energy can exist in a timeless setting. Matter can exist in a timeless setting.

Again, this is not speculation. We KNOW that black holes are not subject to our space-time. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of this. Black holes exist. Matter, energy EXIST in timeless environments such as black holes.

I'm sorry, but this is all as close to conclusive as any statement about cosmology can be. Black holes exist, they are a timeless setting from our prospective, and yet matter, energy, etc, exist in them.

Non-time-dependent stuff (matter, energy, etc) existing in a timeless setting: POSSIBLE

Time-dependent stuff (intelligence, movement, rope skipping, swimming, heartbeat, ballroom dancing, etc) existing in a timeless setting: IMPOSSIBLE

I'll grant this between the IH and NIH models. Both have concepts that cannot be adequately described since we have no knowledge of what it means to not be in our space-time. All of our experiences are based on time and we cannot really understand how something would operate outside of time.

False. Yes, our day to day life is in our space-time (and we agreed that our language is a product of this reality), BUT in the last century we have began to see past this. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory etc, allow us to accurately describe non-time concepts quite well indeed. We can make discrete falsifiable statements about timelessness on the basis of clear empirical data from direct observation of the universe.

Timelessness exists. Space-time inconsistent with what we perceive daily exists. It's called a singularity. Matter, energy, etc exist in it. Intelligence does not. I'm sorry, but it really is that simple.

Ok, let's just talk about the decision itself. Was the probability of the decision happening 100% or less than 100%?

Neither.

Ok. There is a really good shooter. He decided to shoot an arrow into the bullseye. Was the probability that he would make that decision 100% or less than 100%?

Again, neither.

Uh?

Please explain how the probability of ANYTHING happening can be anything other than 100% or "a number other than 100%". This is the most outlandish thing you've said so far in this debate.

Truly, the more I think about this, the more shocked I am. How could you say this? How can the probability of ANYTHING, irrespective of intelligence being involved or not, be anything other than 100% or a number other than 100%?

Indeed, it's not just about probabilities. How can ANY NUMBER IN ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER be anything other than either 100, or "a number other than 100"?

How could ANYTHING be anything other than "X" or "something other than X"?

What's the total number of words that Obama spoke in today's State of the Union? Is it 100 or is it a number other than 100? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100 or a number other than 100?

What's the probability that a Democrat will be President after the next election? Is it 100% or a number other than 100%? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100% or a number other than 100%?(By the way, do you deny that decisions by intelligent entities are involved in who will become President?)

What's the total number of birds that are airborne on this planet right NOW? Is it 100? Or is it a number other than 100? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100 or a number other than 100?

What are the chances that if I guess a number right NOW, it will be equal to the number of airborne birds right NOW? Is it 100% or is it a number other than 100%? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100% or a number other than 100%?

How many students are enrolled in college right now? Is it 100 or a number other than 100? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100 or a number other than 100?

What is the probability that any given student will make the decision to drop out of college? Is it 100% or a number other than 100%? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100% or a number other than 100%?

How many people will be having sex in the next 24 hours in the world? Is it 100 or a number other than 100? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100 or a number other than 100?

What is the probability that my girlfriend will chose to have sex with me tonight? Is it 100% or a number other than 100%? (hint: I forgot to throw out the trash today). Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100% or a number other than 100%?

If somebody threatened to kill my entire family if I didn't give him 1 penny but I knew for a fact that they would be unharmed if I did give him 1 penny, what would be the probability that I would MAKE THE DECISION to give him one penny? Is it 100% or a number other than 100%? Do you agree that whatever it is, it's either 100% or a number other than 100%?

But, to clarify, it wasn't simply one decision that he made that enabled him to hit the bullseye. It was a whole series of decisions that he made. He had to decide to practice and had to do this many times. Eventually, he got good enough to shoot an arrow accurately.

Ok. So it was definitely a process over time. Thanks for spelling that out.

But you re-emphasize that the probability of every single one of these decisions being made was neither 100% nor a number other than 100%?

In that case, is your argument that if there was no intelligence, then the universe could have only started by necessity or contingency, whereas if intelligence was involved it could have also started thanks to his decision, and that therefore it's more likely that intelligence was involved than not?

That's the gist of it.

1) The universe began to exist
2) If no intelligence was involved, then it could have begun in one of two ways (necessity or contingency) whereas if intelligence was involved, it could have begun in one of three ways (necessity, contingency or decision).
3) Therefore it's more reasonable to assume intelligence was involved.

Just to be clear, I'm not making this argument.

I am truly confused Otseng.

When I ask you if you are making the argument written above in red, you answer "That's the gist of it". Then when I ask you if you are making the argument written above in blue, you answer "I'm not making this argument".

The reason I'm confused is because the argument in red and the argument in blue ARE THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT. Literally. The IDENTICAL same argument. Almost verbatim, with only slight differences in sentence and paragraph structure. Conceptually indistinguishable.

Can you please decide whether your position is X, or the exact opposite of X?

Edit: Obviously, you're a really smart guy, so this outrageous contradiction cannot be something you did intentionally, or something that in retrospect you think makes sense. I must assume that this was the result of an oversight/basic human error. I don't begrudge you that, and it's totally ok. Still, insofar as this kind of error could be prevented by paying more attention to what you're writing, I would beg that you do indeed pay more attention. I am investing a lot of time, thought and energy in debating these important matters with you, so this is just a gentle reminder that you going the extra mile and making sure you don't accidentally utter egregious contradictions would be greatly appreciated. Hey, tomorrow it could be me, so it's all good. Let's both agree to try our best, and go easy on each other when mistakes will inevitably happen, cool?

But, I'll also say that I'm not really arguing for intelligence at this point.

Yes you are. You agreed to call your hypothesis the "Intelligence hypothesis". The only point of contention is that you are claiming that intelligence was involved. How could you, having presented 8 arguments for intelligence, say that you're not arguing for intelligence?

I think I mentioned earlier that I'll get more into intelligence when we get into fine-tuning.

If you get into fine-tuning after we're done with the contingency argument, then it will be your 9th argument for intelligence. That means that there were 8 arguments for intelligence prior to it.

But, the main point I'm making now is that it was a decision (or in theological terms, a decree).

Do you agree or disagree that only intelligent entities can make decisions/decrees?

If you disagree, then NIH could have caused the universe by necessity, contingency or decision and your argument fails not in two but three ways (1: Contingency/necessity/decision not a true trichotomy, 2: More ways for universe to begin if intelligence involved no more relevant than apples coming in more colors than grapes, and 3: Non-intelligent causes can make decisions as well).

If you agree, then you are admitting that by arguing for a decision having been made you are implicitly arguing for intelligence, thus negating your statement above.

Wouldn't it be absurd for you to claim that it's more likely for it to be an apple, because an apple could be one of three colors as opposed to a grape that could only be two?

Of course it's absurd. If would only make sense to ask what color it could be if it can be identified ahead of time all the possible colors it could be.

As I said, assume that the only two colors a grape could be were white and red, and assume the only three colors that an apple could be is red, yellow and green. For the sake of argument, accept this as a fact.

Is it more reasonable to assume that there is an apple in the lunchbox rather than a grape, because an apple could be three colors whereas a grape could be just two?

That's why I asked you earlier: "Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?"

If there are other possibilities for a process devoid of intelligence besides chance or necessity, then please present it.

Fair question, and I apologize for not having made myself clear earlier.

As per your definition, if chance/contingency means an event with a probability other than 100% happening, and if necessary means an event with a probability of 100% happening, then I absolutely agree that absolutely everything that happens is either contingent or necessary. It's a true dichotomy, and there absolutely cannot be anything that is something other than contingent or necessary.

Now, for a person, do you agree that not all things are either chance or necessity? But, some things can fall into a free will decision?

I disagree with that. It's in direct contradiction with what I just stated above.

I absolutely believe in free will, namely in an intelligent entity's ability to make a decision which is not possible for any external entity to predict.

Where I disagree with you, is in that I think free will decisions are NOT a separate set from contingent and necessary. Free will decisions are a sub-set of contingent events. Because of free will, we cannot be certain of what anybody will decide. Therefore the decisions are contingent.

Just like a car being a Lexus doesn't preclude it from being a black car or a white car, a decision being the result of free will, doesn't prevent it from being a necessary decision or a contingent decision.

[otseng]

Again, this is not speculation. We KNOW that black holes are not subject to our space-time. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of this. Black holes exist. Matter, energy EXIST in timeless environments such as black holes.

I'm sorry, but this is all as close to conclusive as any statement about cosmology can be. Black holes exist, they are a timeless setting from our prospective, and yet matter, energy, etc, exist in them.

The key point is from our perspective. If black holes are not in our space-time, then they would be in a separate space-time that is different from ours. Yet it would still be a in space-time, so it would not be timeless.

For God, I'm not asserting that God resides in no-time. All I'm asserting is that God does not reside in our time or in any space-time. The concept of time is meaningless for God. It'd be the same as asking what direction is God? God is outside of our space-time, so there is no direction where God is at.

For NIH, if you are proposing that things extra-universe have their own space-time, then it cannot be timeless. It would still have it's own time and thus have the problem of causal infinite regress.

Timelessness exists. Space-time inconsistent with what we perceive daily exists. It's called a singularity. Matter, energy, etc exist in it. Intelligence does not. I'm sorry, but it really is that simple.

You mean something that has zero volume and infinite density can exist? If so, I would dispute that.

For the rest of your post, I'm going to skip down to the heart of the matter. If need be, we can revisit what you said earlier.

That's why I asked you earlier: "Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?"

If there are other possibilities for a process devoid of intelligence besides chance or necessity, then please present it.

Fair question, and I apologize for not having made myself clear earlier.

As per your definition, if chance/contingency means an event with a probability other than 100% happening, and if necessary means an event with a probability of 100% happening, then I absolutely agree that absolutely everything that happens is either contingent or necessary. It's a true dichotomy, and there absolutely cannot be anything that is something other than contingent or necessary.

OK, good, we're in agreement there.

Next, would you agree that if something arises by necessity, it is the result of a natural law? That is, a law is in operation that given all the input, there is only one possible output?

And would you agree that if something arises from contingency, it can be covered by a statistical function? Also, for contingent events, we can point to some natural cause. For example, for uranium, we don't know when an atom will spontaneously decay, but we can reliable guess the average time that an uranium atom will decay. For the cause of radiation, we can point to the unstable nature of the uranium nucleus.

So, would our universe be a necessary or contingent event?

Now, for a person, do you agree that not all things are either chance or necessity? But, some things can fall into a free will decision?

I disagree with that. It's in direct contradiction with what I just stated above.

For the above, we're only talking about processes devoid of intelligence. So, it's not in direct contradiction because now we're talking about intelligent beings.

I absolutely believe in free will, namely in an intelligent entity's ability to make a decision which is not possible for any external entity to predict.

OK, good, we both believe in free will.

Because of free will, we cannot be certain of what anybody will decide. Therefore the decisions are contingent.

To clarify, when I say something is contingent, I mean that we can point to something natural, and only natural things, that causes that result. It does not simply mean we cannot predict the result.

[no evidence no belief]

Again, this is not speculation. We KNOW that black holes are not subject to our space-time. We have overwhelming empirical evidence of this. Black holes exist. Matter, energy EXIST in timeless environments such as black holes.

I'm sorry, but this is all as close to conclusive as any statement about cosmology can be. Black holes exist, they are a timeless setting from our prospective, and yet matter, energy, etc, exist in them.

The key point is from our perspective. If black holes are not in our space-time, then they would be in a separate space-time that is different from ours. Yet it would still be a in space-time, so it would not be timeless.

For God, I'm not asserting that God resides in no-time. All I'm asserting is that God does not reside in our time or in any space-time. The concept of time is meaningless for God. It'd be the same as asking what direction is God? God is outside of our space-time, so there is no direction where God is at.

For NIH, if you are proposing that things extra-universe have their own space-time, then it cannot be timeless. It would still have it's own time and thus have the problem of causal infinite regress.

No. I am not positing an independent but existent space-time for the cause of the universe. Just like you do for IH, for NIH I am positing a timeless reality.

Insofar as timelessness is possible for the inanimate and non-intelligent portions of IH, timelessness is also possible for NIH, which is entirely inanimate and devoid of intelligence.

So, up to this point IH and NIH are perfectly symmetrical including the fact that they both solve the issue of infinite regress.

But the difference between us is that you posit that an intelligent entity also exists in this timelessness.

And that's where you run into problems that are inapplicable to my NIH.

Intelligence is logically incompatible with timelessness. I've mounted an extremely strong argument for that. I have not PROVED IT, but evidence and logic support my position much better than alternative positions. So I've met my burden of proof as per your general principle.

Both our hypotheses may have foundational problems, but they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other. But the problem of infinite regress caused by the incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence only applies to your hypothesis, thus my hypothesis currently has greater logical and evidentiary support than yours.

Let it go, you might be able to catch up with some other argument.

For the rest of your post, I'm going to skip down to the heart of the matter. If need be, we can revisit what you said earlier.

Well, what argument you're trying to make IS the heart of the matter.

Is this your argument?
1) In NIH the universe could have started in one of two ways
2) In IH the universe could have started in one of three ways
3) Therefore IH is more likely to be true.

In response to the question "Is this your argument" you've answered both "That's the gist of it" and "This is not the argument I'm making".

I'll accept either answer as long as you pick one and stick to it, and will agree to pursue this issue at a later time after we've ironed out the definitions as per your text below, if you prefer. Hey, if you're not sure, say "I'm not sure". No problem. You can say "I retract both my statement that this is my argument and my statement that this is NOT my argument. I decline to specify at this time, let's get through the definitions first". Whatever you do, you cannot brush off such an egregious contradiction in your position. I'm not trying to pressure you into stating a position before you're ready to do so. Retract both if you like, but whatever you do, do NOT claim to simultaneously hold two mutually exclusive positions.


Next, before we address the portion of the argument that you chose to focus on, I just need to make sure we are on the same page with regards to basic numbers.

A rat is deposited in the center of a small room. There is a piece of cheese on the right side of the room, and a piece of cheese on the left side of the room. Do you agree that the probability that the rat will move towards the cheese on the right is either 100% or a number other than 100%?

That's why I asked you earlier: "Do you agree that processes devoid of intelligence can only have a result either by chance or necessity? If not, what else can it be a result of?"

If there are other possibilities for a process devoid of intelligence besides chance or necessity, then please present it.

Fair question, and I apologize for not having made myself clear earlier.

As per your definition, if chance/contingency means an event with a probability other than 100% happening, and if necessary means an event with a probability of 100% happening, then I absolutely agree that absolutely everything that happens is either contingent or necessary. It's a true dichotomy, and there absolutely cannot be anything that is something other than contingent or necessary.

OK, good, we're in agreement there.

Next, would you agree that if something arises by necessity, it is the result of a natural law?

No. It could also be the result of some supernatural law (supernatural as in extra-universal).

And would you agree that if something arises from contingency, it can be covered by a statistical function?

Yes, like the statistical functions that can be applied to questions involving intelligent decisions of millions of intelligent people, like for example "Who will be the next President of the United State?". Do you agree or disagree that statistical functions are used to make truth statements about political elections?

If you disagree that statistics can apply to circumstances involving intelligent people making intelligent decisions, how do you reckon that Nate Silver makes a living?

Also, for contingent events, we can point to some natural cause.

Also in this case, we cannot rule out extra-natural causes.

For example, for uranium, we don't know when an atom will spontaneously decay, but we can reliable guess the average time that an uranium atom will decay. For the cause of radiation, we can point to the unstable nature of the uranium nucleus.

Sure. For another example, for voting trends in the US we don't know who any individual person will vote for, but we can reliably guess the average number of votes any given candidate will get in any given district. For the cause of voting trends, we can point to the unstable nature of public opinion in the US.

So, would our universe be a necessary or contingent event?

I honestly don't know, but it definitely has to be either necessary or contingent, irrespective of whether intelligence was or was not involved.

Now, for a person, do you agree that not all things are either chance or necessity? But, some things can fall into a free will decision?

I disagree with that. It's in direct contradiction with what I just stated above.

For the above, we're only talking about processes devoid of intelligence. So, it's not in direct contradiction because now we're talking about intelligent beings.

I am also talking about intelligent beings. That's our point of contention apparently. You believe that if there is a goldfish in a bowl, the amount of goldfish poop there will be in that bowl a month later is neither contingent nor necessary, but a mysterious "something else" based on the fact that a gold fish could conceivably decide to hold in some of his poop.

I absolutely believe in free will, namely in an intelligent entity's ability to make a decision which is not possible for any external entity to predict.

OK, good, we both believe in free will.

Because of free will, we cannot be certain of what anybody will decide. Therefore the decisions are contingent.

To clarify, when I say something is contingent, I mean that we can point to something natural, and only natural things, that causes that result.

Well that may be the root of our misunderstanding then. Because I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility of an extra-natural cause for a contingent event. Honestly, I thought we both were. We already agreed that the universe began to exist and was caused by something outside of the universe.


On a separate note, I'm beginning to think that just letting you assert "intelligence" was involved without requesting additional details was a mistake. Could you please define intelligence?

Can you please tell me which one of the following is or isn't intelligent by your definition?

An omnipotent deity
A human being
A dog
A chicken
A cockroach
An ameba
A virus
A cactus plant
A ultra-advanced robot capable of composing poetry and symphonies, and capable of feeling emotions
An artificial intelligence capable of carrying out an interactive and nuanced conversation with a human
The latest Apple laptop
A computer that came out 20 years ago
A digital calculator
A remote control for your TV
A 9 volt battery
An abacus
A rock
A vacuum (not a vacuum cleaner, actual vacuum. Empty space).

Is intelligence a discrete attribute that you either completely have or completely don't have, or is there a spectrum whereby there is the least possible amount of intelligence on one end (vacuum maybe?) and the maximum possible amount of intelligence on the other end (Omnipotent deity), and everything intelligent falls somewhere within that spectrum? Also, is it always possible to determine what is more intelligent than what, or are there incomparable measures of intelligence? For example, what is more intelligent, a computer that can compose symphonies, advise the President on foreign policy and beat at chess the greatest masters alive, or a lobotomized rabbit?

[otseng]

No. I am not positing an independent but existent space-time for the cause of the universe. Just like you do for IH, for NIH I am positing a timeless reality.

Insofar as timelessness is possible for the inanimate and non-intelligent portions of IH, timelessness is also possible for NIH, which is entirely inanimate and devoid of intelligence.

So, up to this point IH and NIH are perfectly symmetrical including the fact that they both solve the issue of infinite regress.

But the difference between us is that you posit that an intelligent entity also exists in this timelessness.

You also have to posit something exists outside of the universe. The difference is that you have not stated exactly what it is. But, regardless, both would be timeless.

Both our hypotheses may have foundational problems, but they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other. But the problem of infinite regress caused by the incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence only applies to your hypothesis, thus my hypothesis currently has greater logical and evidentiary support than yours.

I will grant this so far.

The only difference, besides intelligence (which I'm not really even arguing for yet), is that the universe was the result of a free will decision.

Is this your argument?
1) In NIH the universe could have started in one of two ways
2) In IH the universe could have started in one of three ways
3) Therefore IH is more likely to be true.

In response to the question "Is this your argument" you've answered both "That's the gist of it" and "This is not the argument I'm making".

It's close, but not exactly. But, I'm not really at the point of presenting my argument yet. However, I might not need to if you claim that it's beyond our ability to understand. If you claim that, then I'm not going to go down the argument of contingency.

Next, would you agree that if something arises by necessity, it is the result of a natural law?

No. It could also be the result of some supernatural law (supernatural as in extra-universal).

OK. I assume you would then acknowledge that whatever the supernatural cause then that it would be beyond our ability to truly grasp. Thus, it would be incomprehensible, even in principle, to us.

On a separate note, I'm beginning to think that just letting you assert "intelligence" was involved without requesting additional details was a mistake. Could you please define intelligence?

Let me put this on hold. Again, I'm not really arguing for intelligence now. We can revisit this, but for now, the issue is intentionality. But, we might have to put that on hold too and discuss free will later.

Actually, I'm surprised we've gone this far just on the issue that there was a beginning to the universe. We haven't even gone past the moment of creation yet. But, I think there's still some things left to discuss about it.

So far, we both claim that some supernatural/extra-universe agency caused our universe. The laws of nature would not apply and some non-natural mechanism was at work that is beyond our ability to understand. Would you agree with this?

[no evidence no belief]

No. I am not positing an independent but existent space-time for the cause of the universe. Just like you do for IH, for NIH I am positing a timeless reality.

Insofar as timelessness is possible for the inanimate and non-intelligent portions of IH, timelessness is also possible for NIH, which is entirely inanimate and devoid of intelligence.

So, up to this point IH and NIH are perfectly symmetrical including the fact that they both solve the issue of infinite regress.

But the difference between us is that you posit that an intelligent entity also exists in this timelessness.

You also have to posit something exists outside of the universe. The difference is that you have not stated exactly what it is.

You have not stated exactly what it is either. You have just posited for the sake of argument the existence of an "intelligent entity with the power to create".

Whatever amount of detail is attached to your hypothesis, the IDENTICAL amount of detail is attached to mine. I simply substitute the term "intelligence" with "absence of intelligence".

So whatever attack you may wish to mount against my argument on the basis of lack of detail, would be equally valid against yours.

Both our hypotheses may have foundational problems, but they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other. But the problem of infinite regress caused by the incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence only applies to your hypothesis, thus my hypothesis currently has greater logical and evidentiary support than yours.

I will grant this so far.

Great. You hereby grant that the absence of the deistic God is a proposition backed by more evidence and logic than the presence of the deistic God.

Thereby, by your general principle, it is more reasonable to disbelieve in the Deistic God than to believe in him.

The only difference, besides intelligence (which I'm not really even arguing for yet), is that the universe was the result of a free will decision.

Is it possibly for a free will decision to take place in the absence of intelligence? Can a rock make a free will decision? Can a molecule of water make a free will decision?

If you say that "yes, a rock has free will", then we will need to have a serious discussion about what free will is.

If you say no, and if you admit that only intelligent entities can make free will decisions, then by arguing that a free will decision took place, you are implicitly arguing for the existence of intelligence.

Is this your argument?
1) In NIH the universe could have started in one of two ways
2) In IH the universe could have started in one of three ways
3) Therefore IH is more likely to be true.

In response to the question "Is this your argument" you've answered both "That's the gist of it" and "This is not the argument I'm making".

It's close, but not exactly. But, I'm not really at the point of presenting my argument yet.

Fair enough.

However, I might not need to if you claim that it's beyond our ability to understand. If you claim that, then I'm not going to go down the argument of contingency.

I do not claim that phenomena beyond our event horizon are necessarily beyond our ability to understand. We may currently lack the tools to fully explore these extra-universal phenomena, much like bronze age astronomers lacked the tools to explore the light spectrum of distant galaxies. But string theory and modern cosmology is making inroads into the subject, and we are already beginning to make some few scattered empirical statements about extra-universal conditions.

So please do present your argument from contingency. As per your admission, you currently have a deficit in evidentiary and logical support due to the inability of IH to account for infinite regress.

Next, would you agree that if something arises by necessity, it is the result of a natural law?

No. It could also be the result of some supernatural law (supernatural as in extra-universal).

OK. I assume you would then acknowledge that whatever the supernatural cause then that it would be beyond our ability to truly grasp. Thus, it would be incomprehensible, even in principle, to us.

Absolutely not. I disagree. It certainly is NOT, in principle, beyond our ability to grasp extra-universal phenomena. Extra-universal simply means outside the universe. It is NOT unrealistic to posit that in the foreseeable future the mathematical models of extra-universality we are constructing might allow us to make falsifiable truth claims. All it takes is for one variation of string theory to gain sufficient empirical backing, and we will have demonstrated the existence of multiple extra-universal dimensions with specific properties. That would be a truth claim about extra-universal conditions.

I think that the notion that the extra-universe is in principle beyond our understanding is demonstrably false.

Don't sell human ingenuity short, Oliver

On a separate note, I'm beginning to think that just letting you assert "intelligence" was involved without requesting additional details was a mistake. Could you please define intelligence?

Let me put this on hold. Again, I'm not really arguing for intelligence now. We can revisit this, but for now, the issue is intentionality.

Can anything other than intelligent beings have intentionality?

But, we might have to put that on hold too and discuss free will later.

Up to you.

Actually, I'm surprised we've gone this far just on the issue that there was a beginning to the universe.

I've agreed for the sake of argument that there was a beginning to the universe. We are discussing what caused the beginning of the universe. You posit intelligence was involved, I posit intelligence was not involved.

You presented 8 arguments in support of your hypothesis, all of which you have conceded (at least for the time being) are not valid.

I presented one argument in support of my hypothesis, which you have conceded is valid.

So far, we both claim that some supernatural/extra-universe agency caused our universe.

I don't like the term "agency" because it subtly implies personhood. But in substance yes, we both agree that some sort of extra-universal event caused the universe to begin existing. Further, you believe intelligence was involved, and I do not.

The laws of nature would not apply and some non-natural mechanism was at work that is beyond our ability to understand. Would you agree with this?

No. I agree that the laws of nature of our universe would not necessarily apply and that some extra-universal event was involved. I agree that we don't currently understand it, but I disagree that it is in principle beyond our ability to understand.


To summarize:
I currently have more evidence and logic in support for non-deism than you have for deism.

You are in the middle of making an argument from contingency and may provide additional arguments subsequently, that may possibly bridge your current deficit in evidentiary and logical support.

You claimed that extra-universal phenomena are in principle beyond our ability to understand, grasp or make empirically backed statements about (I'm kinda putting words in your mouth, please tell me if I misrepresented you), and I vehemently disagree.

Let me know what's next

[otseng]

You have not stated exactly what it is either. You have just posited for the sake of argument the existence of an "intelligent entity with the power to create".

It is a deistic god. At least this is a concept that people have a general idea of what it is. For NIH, I'm not even sure what you are proposing except that it is not a deistic god. It is some evolutionary cosmic process? Oscillating strings? Rotating pyramids? Just numbers?

Both our hypotheses may have foundational problems, but they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other. But the problem of infinite regress caused by the incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence only applies to your hypothesis, thus my hypothesis currently has greater logical and evidentiary support than yours.

I will grant this so far.

Great. You hereby grant that the absence of the deistic God is a proposition backed by more evidence and logic than the presence of the deistic God.

Sorry, I misspoke. I read your first part that "they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other." And then I didn't catch that you threw in that timelessness is only a problem for intelligence.

I agree with the first part that "they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other."

For the second part, it contradicts the statement above. Also, I already stated that our rules of time does not apply outside of our time. So, it's meaningless to impose restrictions of time on something that is timeless. And again, if you impose restrictions of time on IH, it also applies to NIH.

If you say no, and if you admit that only intelligent entities can make free will decisions, then by arguing that a free will decision took place, you are implicitly arguing for the existence of intelligence.

I'm not denying that intelligence and free will are correlated. But, they are not the same thing.

I do not claim that phenomena beyond our event horizon are necessarily beyond our ability to understand. We may currently lack the tools to fully explore these extra-universal phenomena, much like bronze age astronomers lacked the tools to explore the light spectrum of distant galaxies.

You'll have to clarify here. You stated that our universe could've originated by a supernatural law. So, do you mean that the supernatural law could in principle be discoverable? What's the difference between a supernatural law and a natural law? If a supernatural law was discovered, what would make it different from a natural law?

So please do present your argument from contingency.

Contingency would only apply if you accept that it would result from natural laws. If you posit supernatural laws, then the contingency argument would not apply.

Can anything other than intelligent beings have intentionality?

Depends on what is meant by an intelligent being. A four year old might not be intelligent, but it has intentionality.

But in substance yes, we both agree that some sort of extra-universal event caused the universe to begin existing.

I agree that the laws of nature of our universe would not necessarily apply and that some extra-universal event was involved. I agree that we don't currently understand it, but I disagree that it is in principle beyond our ability to understand.

Even with dispensing the ability to understand it, would you agree that for both IH and NIH, the origin of the universe would be considered a miracle?

Here are definitions of a miracle:

"A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

"An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God:"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miracle

"an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miracle

"A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent"
http://skepdic.com/miracles.html

[no evidence no belief]

You have not stated exactly what it is either. You have just posited for the sake of argument the existence of an "intelligent entity with the power to create".

It is a deistic god. At least this is a concept that people have a general idea of what it is. For NIH, I'm not even sure what you are proposing except that it is not a deistic god. It is some evolutionary cosmic process? Oscillating strings? Rotating pyramids? Just numbers?

I am providing no more and no less details than you are. I am just adding a "non-" in front of the word intelligence.

Any attack that can be leveled about the lack of detail in my hypothesis can equally effectively be leveled at yours.

Both our hypotheses may have foundational problems, but they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other. But the problem of infinite regress caused by the incompatibility of timelessness and intelligence only applies to your hypothesis, thus my hypothesis currently has greater logical and evidentiary support than yours.

I will grant this so far.

Great. You hereby grant that the absence of the deistic God is a proposition backed by more evidence and logic than the presence of the deistic God.

Sorry, I misspoke. I read your first part that "they are symmetrical and none of the problems give either hypothesis an advantage over the other." And then I didn't catch that you threw in that timelessness is only a problem for intelligence.

Oh, ok. Well, we will need to continue exploring this topic then, because we still disagree. Lets break it down step by step. Please see my question directly below.

Also, I already stated that our rules of time does not apply outside of our time. So, it's meaningless to impose restrictions of time on something that is timeless. And again, if you impose restrictions of time on IH, it also applies to NIH.

Can you measure at what speed an object is moving in a timeless environment?

If not, why not?

Can anything other than intelligent beings have intentionality?

Depends on what is meant by an intelligent being. A four year old might not be intelligent, but it has intentionality.

You will need to define intelligence quite soon. It's getting to the point that not having a working definition of it has a detrimental effect on the debate.

I do not claim that phenomena beyond our event horizon are necessarily beyond our ability to understand. We may currently lack the tools to fully explore these extra-universal phenomena, much like bronze age astronomers lacked the tools to explore the light spectrum of distant galaxies.

You'll have to clarify here. You stated that our universe could've originated by a supernatural law. So, do you mean that the supernatural law could in principle be discoverable?

Of course! Extra-universal laws could most definitely be discoverable. The trajectory of research in modern cosmology clearly indicates that we are already making significant inroads towards that.

What's the difference between a supernatural law and a natural law?

A natural/intra-universal law is a law that governs events inside our universe. An extranatural/supernatural/extra-universal law is a law that governs events outside our universe.

If a supernatural law was discovered, what would make it different from a natural law?

The fact that it would govern events outside of the universe rather than inside it.

For example, if thanks to string theory we discovered that another universe exists concurrent to ours, or existed prior to our big bang, and we discovered that gravitational force was twice as strong in that universe, that would be an extra-universal law.

But in substance yes, we both agree that some sort of extra-universal event caused the universe to begin existing.

I agree that the laws of nature of our universe would not necessarily apply and that some extra-universal event was involved. I agree that we don't currently understand it, but I disagree that it is in principle beyond our ability to understand.

Even with dispensing the ability to understand it, would you agree that for both IH and NIH, the origin of the universe would be considered a miracle?

Wow.... OF COURSE NOT. I completely disagree with that.

Why would I attach such mystical superstitious terminology to a simple physical phenomenon? You seem to be getting confused between supernatural/extra-universal - meaning simply an event happening outside the event horizon of the big bang - and supernatural in the theistic sense, meaning some kind of imponderable miracle beyond our understanding. That's a category error you seem to be continually making.

Look, this is all it boils down to:

There wasn't something -------> something happened -------> now there is something

That's all there is to it. The simple mechanical cause-and-effect chain can be applied to all of the phenomena below:

There wasn't a rock in a field -------> there was an earthquake that caused a rock to roll down from a mountain -------> now there is a rock on the field

There was no cow dung on a field -------> a cow strolled by and pooped -------> now there is cow dung in the field

There was no burned tree stump in the field -------> lightning struck -------> now there is a burned tree stump in the field

There was no water on the ground -------> it started raining -------> now there is water on the ground

There was no log cabin on the field -------> humans built a log cabin -------> now there is a log cabin in the field

There was no land animal -------> sea animals evolved into land animals -------> there now are land animals

There was no universe -------> an as-yet-unknown event happened -------> now there is a universe

I cannot see any valid reason to distinguish between these events beyond saying that in the example of the cow pooping and the humans constructing a log cabin intelligence/free will/intentionality was involved, whereas in the rock rolling down, the lightning, the rain and evolution of land animals, intelligence/free will/intentionality was not involved.

Our only point of contention is that you posit the universe coming into existence was a process involving intelligence/free will/intentionality such as a cow pooping or a human building a log cabin, whereas I posit it was a process NOT involving intelligence/free will/intentionality such as evolution or rain.

IH v. NIH. That's all. What's this talk of miracles all about? lol.

So please do present your argument from contingency.

Contingency would only apply if you accept that it would result from natural laws. If you posit supernatural laws, then the contingency argument would not apply.

Ok, well, if the contingency argument posits that nothing - including extra-universal laws - can exist outside the universe, then obviously it does not apply to our debate, since we both agree that something external to the universe caused the universe to begin.

To recap: We have dispensed with 7 arguments for the deistic God. We are still debating my argument from "incompatibility of intelligence and timelessness" against the deistic God, and you've abandoned your argument from contingency for the deistic God.

Do you have anything else you wish to present at this time, or should we focus on my counterargument first?

To reiterate, the first step in my counterargument is this question:

Can the speed of an object be measured in a timeless setting?

If not, why not?

[no evidence no belief]

Actually, my counterargument for the non existence of the deist god based on the incompatibility of intelligence and timelessness has a question antecedent to the one i asked above, and it is this:

Can a square have 5 corners outside of our observable universe?

True dichotomy. Either it can, or it cannot.

[otseng]

I am providing no more and no less details than you are. I am just adding a "non-" in front of the word intelligence.

Let's put it this way.

Suppose Charlie believes in the following about X:

- Methodological naturalism cannot be assumed
- X created our universe - all of time, space, matter, energy, everything
- X exists outside of our universe
- X created only one universe
- Natural laws do not apply to X
- X is timeless

What is X for Charlie?

If you ask anybody this, I would dare that the answer would overwhelmingly be "god". Yet, you propose a different answer which is not much more than, it is not god.

Let's put it another way.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Charlie believes in and says it is not god?

Can you measure at what speed an object is moving in a timeless environment?

We cannot measure anything, including speed, if it is outside our universe.

You will need to define intelligence quite soon.

Sure. I'll do that when we get to fine-tuning after we discuss the origin of the universe.

Of course! Extra-universal laws could most definitely be discoverable. The trajectory of research in modern cosmology clearly indicates that we are already making significant inroads towards that.

No scientists that I'm aware of claim that they are discovering supernatural/extra-universal laws. String theory posits things outside of our space-time, which would technically fall under being extra-universal, but they don't say they are proposing some extra-universal or supernatural theories.

An extranatural/supernatural/extra-universal law is a law that governs events outside our universe.

How would you know how supernatural laws operate outside of our universe? Laws can only be verified by empirical evidence. If we have no way to measure things outside of our universe, then there's no way to verify laws outside our universe. Without empirical verification, there can be no law.

For example, if thanks to string theory we discovered that another universe exists concurrent to ours, or existed prior to our big bang, and we discovered that gravitational force was twice as strong in that universe, that would be an extra-universal law.

Let's suppose that string theory does provide such an explanation in the future for the origin of the universe. However, we cannot appeal to explanations that do not yet exist. As I mentioned in post 2, "It is granted that there might exist other explanations that we do not currently know about, but for now, it can be claimed that explanation A is a reasonable position to hold."

If you claim that there is some extra-universal law that we do not know of that created this universe, then I claim that God is a reasonable position to hold based on the principle I stated above.

But in substance yes, we both agree that some sort of extra-universal event caused the universe to begin existing.

I agree that the laws of nature of our universe would not necessarily apply and that some extra-universal event was involved. I agree that we don't currently understand it, but I disagree that it is in principle beyond our ability to understand.

Even with dispensing the ability to understand it, would you agree that for both IH and NIH, the origin of the universe would be considered a miracle?

Wow.... OF COURSE NOT. I completely disagree with that.

Why would I attach such mystical superstitious terminology to a simple physical phenomenon? You seem to be getting confused between supernatural/extra-universal - meaning simply an event happening outside the event horizon of the big bang - and supernatural in the theistic sense, meaning some kind of imponderable miracle beyond our understanding. That's a category error you seem to be continually making.

I'm not making the category error. I'm simply providing well-accepted definitions of miracle and showing that our assumptions line up with the definitions of a miracle. Thus, what we both propose can be classified as a miracle. Note that the definitions of a miracle do not necessarily entail a "god". The only thing that is common with all definitions is that natural laws do not apply and that there is a supernatural origin. Since we both agree to this, and that the definition of a miracle is also this, then it is logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is a miracle.

As you say, perfect symmetry.

I cannot see any valid reason to distinguish between these events beyond saying that in the example of the cow pooping and the humans constructing a log cabin intelligence/free will/intentionality was involved, whereas in the rock rolling down, the lightning, the rain and evolution of land animals, intelligence/free will/intentionality was not involved.

For things that can make a decision, it becomes more complicated. We are not able to boil decisions down to a simple mechanical cause-and-effect chain.

What's this talk of miracles all about? lol.

Uh, the OP title?

Ok, well, if the contingency argument posits that nothing - including extra-universal laws - can exist outside the universe, then obviously it does not apply to our debate, since we both agree that something external to the universe caused the universe to begin.

The contingency argument does not posit that nothing can exist outside the universe.

Can a square have 5 corners outside of our observable universe?

If by definition a square has four corners, then no, a square cannot have 5 corners, even outside our universe.

[no evidence no belief]

I am providing no more and no less details than you are. I am just adding a "non-" in front of the word intelligence.

Let's put it this way.

Suppose Charlie believes in the following about X:

- Methodological naturalism cannot be assumed
- X created our universe - all of time, space, matter, energy, everything
- X exists outside of our universe
- X created only one universe
- Natural laws do not apply to X
- X is timeless

What is X for Charlie?

Before I get into my argument: I never agreed that X "created" our universe. The word "created" implies intelligence. I would use the word "caused", because it's applicable both to IH and NIH. When describing "neutral territory" that we've both agreed to, please be careful not to use words that implicitly point towards your position.

Anyway, here is my argument:

Suppose Steve believes in the following about X:
- X lives in a cold and snowy place
- X dresses in red and has flowy white beard and hair
- X is jolly and kind
- X owns a sled
- X delivers presents to children on Christmas eve.

What is X for Steve?

If you ask anybody this, I would dare that the answer would overwhelmingly be "god". Yet, you propose a different answer which is not much more than, it is not god.

If you ask anybody this, I would dare that the answer would overwhelmingly be "Santa". And yet I propose a different answer which is not much more than "It's not Santa".

Let's put it another way.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Charlie believes in and says it is not god?

Yes. Every non-deist on the planet.

Can you show anybody that believes in all that Steve believes and says it is not Santa? I think you can. And I think you just realized the flaw in your argument.

It's clearly an argumentum ad populum. "Most people who make assumptions about the universe having begun to exist by virtue of an external cause, also end up making the leap of faith that this cause was an intelligent one, therefore it is true that it was an intelligent one". Come on man!

The reverse of your argument is nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. "I cannot personally imagine how the universe could have been caused to begin existing in the absence of intelligence, therefore God".

Can you measure at what speed an object is moving in a timeless environment?

We cannot measure anything, including speed, if it is outside our universe.

Allow me to rephrase.

Irrespective of what we can or cannot measure from our position inside the universe, is it possible in principle for an object to be moving in a timeless environment. If not, why not?

Of course! Extra-universal laws could most definitely be discoverable. The trajectory of research in modern cosmology clearly indicates that we are already making significant inroads towards that.

No scientists that I'm aware of claim that they are discovering supernatural/extra-universal laws. String theory posits things outside of our space-time, which would technically fall under being extra-universal, but they don't say they are proposing some extra-universal or supernatural theories.

An extranatural/supernatural/extra-universal law is a law that governs events outside our universe.

How would you know how supernatural laws operate outside of our universe? Laws can only be verified by empirical evidence. If we have no way to measure things outside of our universe, then there's no way to verify laws outside our universe. Without empirical verification, there can be no law.

For example, if thanks to string theory we discovered that another universe exists concurrent to ours, or existed prior to our big bang, and we discovered that gravitational force was twice as strong in that universe, that would be an extra-universal law.

Let's suppose that string theory does provide such an explanation in the future for the origin of the universe. However, we cannot appeal to explanations that do not yet exist. As I mentioned in post 2, "It is granted that there might exist other explanations that we do not currently know about, but for now, it can be claimed that explanation A is a reasonable position to hold."

If you claim that there is some extra-universal law that we do not know of that created this universe, then I claim that God is a reasonable position to hold based on the principle I stated above.

Ok, let's pause this right here, because you're making (possibly inadvertently) a MASSIVE bait and switch. It's possible that I was complicit in this misunderstanding by not expressing myself clearly. In any case, let's rectify this immediately.

We are discussing whether it's possible or impossible, in principle, to ponder/understand/discover laws, facts, conditions that govern things outside of our event horizon.

You claim that it's impossible, I claim that it's possible.

Please take note, because this is very important: Right now I'm not claiming that we HAVE understood/discovered extra-universal laws. I kinda claimed that we may well discover/understand these laws soon, and now I realize I misspoke. Right now I'm not claiming we may understand/discover them soon. Right now I'm not even claiming we may understand/discover them EVER.

Right now, I am just claiming it is NOT, in principle, impossible for us to understand, grasp, ponder, discover laws/conditions/events/circumstances/facts governing reality outside our event horizon.

You on the other hand seem to be asserting that something is categorically, eternally, irrefutably beyond our understanding, just because it's outside our event horizon.

So, this is our difference. How do we resolve it, in accordance with your general principle?

When one claims that something is and somebody else claims that something is not, then your general principle applies. If there is more evidence and logic in support of the claim that something is than there is in support of the claim that something is not, then it's reasonable to believe that something is.

In other words, the default position is one of neutral lack of belief both for the claim that something is, and for the claim that something is not. This position of initial neutrality is then shifted in one direction or the other on the basis of the strength of evidence and logic backing either claim.

This same exact system should apply to the claim that "something is possible" versus the claim that "something is impossible". If evidence and logic support the notion that something is impossible more than they support the notion that something is possible, then it's reasonable to lean towards assuming that something is impossible.

Here is the problem. "Something is impossible" is a very special kind of claim. An anomaly. Allow me to explain.

Let's say you claim a Democrat will be president in 2017 and I claim it will be a Republican. Let's say evidence (polls, interviews, historical trends, analysis of world affairs, etc) indicate that it's more likely that it will be a Democrat. Given these facts, your general principle dictates that it's more reasonable to assume it will be a Democrat (even though a Republican could still win).

Now let's say that you claim that something is impossible and I claim something is possible. Let's say evidence indicates that it's 99% likely that it will be impossible. Given these facts, your general principle would seem to indicate that it's more reasonable to believe that something is impossible.

EXCEPT.... There is a wrinkle.

What do you call something which evidence indicates is only 1% likely to be possible? YOU CALL IT POSSIBLE.

That's the anomaly. For most claims, the person who can show that evidence and logic support this claim even just by 51% to 49%, technically wins. But for claims about something being possible or impossible, up until the evidence shows that something is 0% possible and 100% impossible, then the person claiming something is possible wins by default. Because if it's only 0.00000000001% likely that something is possible... IT'S POSSIBLE.

By definition, if evidence and logic support claim X, but don't do so conclusively, then it's possible that claim not-X is true. If claim not-x is "something is possible", then it's possible that something is possible. Which is to say, it's possible

So, please demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that it's impossible, in principle, for us to understand/discover extra-universal facts.

You can't just assert that it's impossible. You can't do so even if you've demonstrated that it's unlikely on the basis of logic and evidence. Until it's been proven conclusively that something unlikely is impossible, it's by definition possible.

Do you accept this?

But in substance yes, we both agree that some sort of extra-universal event caused the universe to begin existing.

I agree that the laws of nature of our universe would not necessarily apply and that some extra-universal event was involved. I agree that we don't currently understand it, but I disagree that it is in principle beyond our ability to understand.

Even with dispensing the ability to understand it, would you agree that for both IH and NIH, the origin of the universe would be considered a miracle?

Wow.... OF COURSE NOT. I completely disagree with that.

Why would I attach such mystical superstitious terminology to a simple physical phenomenon? You seem to be getting confused between supernatural/extra-universal - meaning simply an event happening outside the event horizon of the big bang - and supernatural in the theistic sense, meaning some kind of imponderable miracle beyond our understanding. That's a category error you seem to be continually making.

I'm not making the category error. I'm simply providing well-accepted definitions of miracle and showing that our assumptions line up with the definitions of a miracle. Thus, what we both propose can be classified as a miracle. Note that the definitions of a miracle do not necessarily entail a "god". The only thing that is common with all definitions is that natural laws do not apply and that there is a supernatural origin. Since we both agree to this, and that the definition of a miracle is also this, then it is logical to conclude that the origin of the universe is a miracle.

Oliver, your argument is valid but unsound. It's structurally correct, but based on the false premise that I agree to the terms you use.

I do NOT agree that "natural laws do not apply" to conditions external or antecedent to the universe. Natural laws definitely apply outside the event horizon, they are just not necessarily the same as natural laws on our side of the event horizon. Also, I do NOT agree that there is "a supernatural origin" in the theological/religious sense implicit in those definitions of miracle, I just accept that the event that caused the universe is outside our event horizon.

You already agreed that for events outside the event horizon, we would use the word extra-universal. Can you please stop using the word "supernatural" when the context calls for "extra-universal"? It's confusing.

So far in our debate, all I have agreed to is this:

- We call the environment inside our event horizon "intra-universal" and the environment outside our event horizon "extra-universal".

- Although natural laws must of necessity exist outside our event horizon, extra-universal laws of nature need not necessarily be the same as intra-universal laws of nature.

- We currently make empirical statements about intra-universal laws, and it is NOT, in principle, impossible for us to make empirical statements about extra-universal laws. In fact, you've made an empirical statement about extra-universal laws yourself. See below.

- The observable universe began to exist.

- The phenomenon that caused this is extra-universal - beyond our event horizon.

That's it. Those are all the assumptions I've agreed to thus far.

Again, extra-universal describes a purely mechanical event/process/entity which just happens to exist outside of our event horizon, like for example inside a black hole or "before" the big bang. This is completely different from the religious/theological word "supernatural".

Further, I reject the notion that "natural laws do not apply" outside our event horizon/universe. There are natural laws outside the event horizon. We may or may not already have or be able to devise ways in the future to explore these extra-universal natural laws in detail, but by extrapolative means, we can most definitely already make empirical statements about extra-universal natural laws. For example you (not me, you) have posited based on deductive reasoning supported by evidence and logic, that one of the extra-universal natural laws involves timelessness.

In other words, this is the portion of the post where I show you that not only I haven't agreed to "miracles", but you haven't either. If the definition of "miracle" is an event where natural laws do not apply, or an event which is in principle beyond our understanding (because supernatural in the religious sense), YOU have demonstrated that IH is not a miracle. You have posited the logical necessity that the environment antecedent to the universe is timeless. Thus you have determined at least one natural law for this extra-universal: Timelessness. And you have demonstrated that extra-universal conditions are NOT imponderable because you were able to construct the logical argument from infinite regress which proves timeless conditions outside the event horizon.

Not only is NIH NOT a miracle, but neither is IH. If you wish to claim that IH was a miracle, please retract your claim that this intelligent entity is timeless, because that statement contradicts the notion that natural laws such as the presence or absence of time would apply, and it contradicts the notion that this entity is imponderable (if you were able to assert it is timeless, you were able to ponder it).

What's this talk of miracles all about? lol.

Uh, the OP title?

You are welcome to posit miracles, and then present the available logical and evientiary support for them. But please do not distort my position (or yours for that matter!) by claiming that the word "miracle" accurately encapsulates it.

Ok, well, if the contingency argument posits that nothing - including extra-universal laws - can exist outside the universe, then obviously it does not apply to our debate, since we both agree that something external to the universe caused the universe to begin.

The contingency argument does not posit that nothing can exist outside the universe.

Sorry, I misspoke. Does your contingency argument posit that extra-universal natural laws cannot exist? If so, do you retract the claim that the extra-universe is bound by the natural law of timelessness?

Can a square have 5 corners outside of our observable universe?

If by definition a square has four corners, then no, a square cannot have 5 corners, even outside our universe.

Great. So you agree that the laws of logic apply both inside and outside our event horizon. In other words, you agree that that the laws of logic apply both intra-universally and extra-universally. Correct?

My next question was already posed earlier in this post, but I'll present it here again:

Completely detached from the question of what is possible for us from within the confines of our event horizon, according to the laws of logic that apply both in and outside our event horizon, is it possible or impossible, in principle, for movement to exist in a timeless setting?

If you answer anything other than "no", could you please define "movement"?