Wanted: posters to talk on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

[ThinkingSapien]

Dear ThinkingS, that is always my difficulty with you, you say I have not presented any argument, I say I have but you went away.

I was actually there until the end of that thread. But you made a remark uninviting me from participating. So, as stated in the thread, I continued as an observer until the threads was closed by a moderator.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

If that’s an inference that you are making on your own that’s fine with me as long as it is attributed as such.

Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.

Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

Sorry, I don’t find the above meaningful and it only appears to be an assertion. From the many versions of this thread that you’ve started you’ve never developed the god-concept that you are using. You’ve attributed the universe to your god-concept. That tells me next to nothing. I can’t infer anything about this god or even agree or disagree with assertions of its existence. It was in response to this undeveloped god-concept that I told you I would have to take an ignostic disposition to your god-concept and you interpreted this as being a refusal to take a position at all and evading and saying the words I was using were too big.

This is looking like an opportunity for a repeat of that thread. I’m not really interested in doing that.

 

[runningdude]

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

​

Earlier in this thread, I already demonstrated that science has does not definitively prove that the universe has a beginning. The current best models suggest as much due to the second law of thermodynamics, but this “law” could be wrong.

2. Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.

1. Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, I will just request you to concentrate on argument line #1.

Please keep to #1, because it is better for the sake of focus and thus my comprehension of your ideas.

KingCoil

My argument is that we can only have faith in God’s existence; there is no material proof.

 

[polytropos]

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

1. Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.
2. Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

One does not augment an argument by saying that it is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. (Nor does it help to state after each step that it is a fact or is logic.)

In spite of the assertion that your argument is logical, and that (2) “is logic,” it is not formally valid; it is an enthymeme, an informal syllogism with an unstated assumption. (It is actually two enthymemes.)

I suggest that we consider the following:
(1’) The universe has a beginning. (premise - claimed to be scientifically established)
(2’) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (premise - unstated in your argument)
(3’) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (from (1’) and (2’))
(4’) If the universe has a cause, then it was created by God. (premise - unstated in your argument)
(5’) Therefore, God is the creator of the universe. (from (3’) and (4’))

Some prima facie issues with this:

• If (1’) is scientifically established, then the argument is not a metaphysical demonstration, since most finding of science (particularly in astrophysics) are less than fully certain and sometimes are subjects of significant debate.
• (4’) would require a lot of support for the argument to be persuasive. It is also claimed to “be logic,” but it is also repairing the enthymeme from (2) to (3) in your original argument. However, in order to argue that (4’) is true, you would have to give us a rigorous definition of creation (since it is not conceptually the same as causation) and a fleshed out God concept. (Without the latter, the argument just assigns “God” as the name of the cause. You have additional work to do, in defending (4’), if you believe that the term “God,” as it is used in your argument, should connote some of the traditional attributes of God.)
• One issue with (4’) might be that it (as it stands) assume the immediate cause of the universe must be God. So it would be false if, for example, God created a lesser, which then created the universe. (I don’t regard this as possible because I believe “a” Creator, on my definition of creation, must be unique, so only God could create. If the lesser god were an “assembler” of a demiurge stripe, then it would not bother for example Aquinas’s First Way. But you haven’t given us a definition of creation, nor have you provided any arguments to sort out these problems, so I can only guess how you will address the issue.)

Another word on Aquinas’s arguments: They are nice in the respect that they establish that Pure Act exists. The conceptual wealth of Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics allows one to infer quite a bit about the nature of Pure Act from the fact that Pure Act exists. Your argument faces a difficulty in this area in that it does not show anything about the nature of God, and does not seem to provide a starting point such as Pure Act. There are alternative approaches, but your argument, as it stands now, does not appear prepared to accommodate them.

There may be another way you would like to validate the inference from (2) to (3). Most arguments from contemporary philosophers of religion would probably expand (4’) into several steps, since it is a big jump to make. I’ve added the minimum number of premises that you would have to add in order for the argument to be formally valid, but perhaps you have other options that I haven’t considered. Nevertheless, we should be working with a formally valid argument if we mean to do any serious thinking, so if you do not accept my reconstruction, please provide your own formally valid rendering of your original argument.

I do remember that some posters attempted to get you to formalize your argument sufficiently on your last thread, and since you are still posting the formally invalid version, I suspect that you will not actually undertake the necessary repairs to make your argument valid. But I hope you do; we might then have an interesting discussion.

Please keep to #1, because it is better for the sake of focus and thus my comprehension of your ideas.

I don’t have much to say about (1). I would repeat what I said above: If (1) is scientifically established, then the argument cannot be a metaphysical demonstration. That does not mean that it cannot be persuasive, of course.

I am not conversant with the scientific findings on the beginning of the universe to say whether (1) is in fact scientifically established. I do know that there is no scientific consensus on this issue, so it does seem like you would have to state the particular theory you take to establish (1).

I would be willing to concede (1), if you’d like to move on. I am more interested in how you intend to get a God concept out of this argument than whether the premises are true, which would require some specialized knowledge (in this case) which I do not possess.

Above I have ignored your request to focus solely on (1). You don’t need to respond to that, although perhaps you should because I am willing to simply concede (1) (or (1’)) as true for the sake of argument, as I think there are far more interesting discussions to be had. I should note that, given my critique above, for me to concede (1) or (1’) is not to concede that your conclusion follows.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I am not conversant with the scientific findings on the beginning of the universe to say whether (1) is in fact scientifically established. I do know that there is no scientific consensus on this issue, so it does seem like you would have to state the particular theory you take to establish (1).

Since you are willing to conceded (1) my response here may not matter much. But I’ll share my understanding should it become relevant.

A part of the Big Bang theory is that earlier in the existence of the universe all of the material of the universe was concentrated in a common “place” (I’m ignoring how the the expansion of space-time impacts the meaning of the word “place” in this context) and a rapid expansion of this material around 13.74 billion years ago that lead up to the universe that we see today. As to what happened before this or whether or not there is a before this is something that is unknown. The beginning of this expansion is sometimes present by people as the “Beginning of the universe.” However this is the beginning of the universe in the same sense that an egg and cake mix are the beginning of a cake; it’s about the transformation of pre-existing material. There are varying opinions about what the pre- Big Bang universe may have been like and whether or not there was one but no one really knows…

 

[Oreoracle]

It is like with all hard core skeptics who want to argue that the universe came forth from nothing, but they understand nothing not as nothing but as something, only they call it nothing to enjoy the psychology of conviction that nothing is indeed the cause of everything.

In the next post you say that we are implying that you have an agenda. I’m not doing any such thing, but it seems you think I have an agenda. I’m not attempting to argue that “everything came from nothing” or any such thing. Rather, I’m saying that there are many propositions that are true independently of the existence of humans. All of the laws of physics would still be in place even if a meteor obliterated everyone on this planet tomorrow. Do you disagree?

As you requested, I will focus solely on your first premise:

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

“Beginning” is a tricky term, because there are beginnings of causal chains (the first cause of a cause-and-effect chain) and there are beginnings of more abstract chains (1 is the beginning of the natural numbers, for example). Theologians have fancy terms for these different concepts, but hopefully my plain English version is clear enough.

I will call the cause-and-effect beginning a temporal beginning. Our current understanding of physics does indeed suggest that there was a temporal beginning. However, some physicists believe that our universe emerged “after” another iteration of the universe collapsed (the collapse is called a Big Crunch). It’s possible that this cycle could have occurred any number of times. As far as we know, the cycle may not have had a beginning. Since time, as a concept, doesn’t make sense in between these Big Crunches and Big Bangs, I’m using words like “after” and beginning in the abstract sense here, in the same sense in which 2 comes after 1.

I suppose my main point is that we need to be cautious not to treat temporal beginnings as if they are logical/abstract beginnings.

 

[Skeptic92]

Why are people talking about creation in time? There is no need; we do not need to argue that the universe has a temporal beginning to establish that there is a God. The Quinquae Viae are sound whether or not the universe has a beginning an a finite past-time or not; which by the way it does. As Vilenkin demonstrated and brought to the foreground in his book “Many Worlds in One”. This, however, is not a demonstrative argument. We would need to have a very in depth discussion in regards to the Ontology of Time to discern whether Time is causally ordered per se or per accidens. If ordered per se the KCA is demonstrative; if ordered per accidens then it is not. This is as there is no contradiction in a causal series ordered per accidens infinitely regressing.

Since we’re going for an Argument for the existence of God though; here we go.

Definition 1: A contingent being is a composite union of Act and potency, whilst any necessary Being must be Purely Actual.
Axiom 1: That which is in potency, can only be reduced to act, by that which is itself in act
Axiom 2: Reality is Intelligible.
Axiom 3: Any contingent being requires an efficient cause to actualise its potency for existence.

Thesis: Necessarily, there exists at least one necessary being

Either there exists only contingent beings, or at least one necessary being exists

In any causal series ordered per se, it can be clearly seen that the secondary, or instrumental, causes necessitate the existence of a First Cause. This is as if there were only contingent beings in all of reality, the most fundamental requirements for the existence of something now would not be met. This is as any contingent being is in potency towards its existence which is actualised by the presence of its efficient cause. A finite, infinite, or circular causal series ordered per se of only contingent beings would be equivalent to saying that nothing exists, which is absurd.

Therefore there exists at least one Purely Actual Necessary being to ground the existence of all else that is. Demonstrated by disjunctive syllogism, therefore Atheism is to be rejected under pains of noncontradiction.

Thesis: N must be absolutely unique

To demonstrate that Pure Act must be absolutely unique, and not within any genera, we must ask ourselves how Pure Act could be individuated to allow for multiple instantiations of Pure Act. For there to be more than one being of Pure Actuality, the different instantiations would have to be Pure Actuality plus some specific difference. This however would reveal that the different instantiations of Pure Actuality would have to be a composite of Pure Act plus some specific difference. This however would entail that Pure Act is in potency in regards to receiving this specific difference, and therefore not be Pure Actuality but a composite union of Act and potency making it a contingent being. Which is absurd.

Therefore Pure Actuality must be absolutely unique; demonstrated by Leibniz’ law of the identity of the indiscernibles and reductio ad absurdum. Therefore strict Polytheism is to be rejected as in violation of noncontradiction.

Do I need to carry on?

 

[KingCoil]

I have no idea if you have a hidden agenda or not.

However, it does not appear the you are willing to accept any response that questions the assumption you have made. Nor does it appear the any objection is engaged with rational dialog.

I have not yet read the rest of the new posts here, but I will tell you right away that you are mistaken with your last words in your post above.

Have you been reading my posts from the very start of my presence here in Catholic Answers?

It is on the contrary that folks here go away when they do not anymore want to continue with me on intelligent thinking grounded on facts and logic; for example Linus2 comes to mind, he brings in divine revelation, that is not intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, and ThinkingS he does not want to bring up again unlike with myself what things he already said earlier, but insists that I look them up, then he went away – now he is back I don’t know for how long.

My observation is that folks who go away from me just do not want to do anymore further intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

If you stay with me all the time even though you feel that I am insulting you – you just insult me back or insist on an apology from me, and we continue on and on and on, you will notice how I always accept a better instance of intelligent thinking from you grounded on logic and facts.

Now, you will ask me who is to decide when one of us is or is not into intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts?

Simple, will you agree with me that we in such a situation work together to concur on when in the particular instance involved we have the same concept of what is intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts or not, and that is the point where folks will resort to say that they cannot understand my English.

So, don’t go away, and see if you will all the time keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

I’m a Neo-Scholastic Philosopher in the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition…what do you want? An argument for the Existence of God? Well, you’re in luck my specialisms are; Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Natural Theology, and Philosophical Theology.

Ask me anything

Thanks for coming over, have we met before? Anyway stay around and see whether we can collaborate with one another in our intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, to know that God creator of the universe exists as in concept creator of the universe.

See if you will react to my #1 line in my argument for God’s existence as creator of the universe.

King:

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

    2. Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.

    3. Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

​

Now, I will just request you to concentrate on argument line #1.

Please keep to #1, because it is better for the sake of focus and thus my comprehension of your ideas.

Thanks for coming over, please don’t go away or not for long, but come back when you are free again to visit and react to my ideas, but do it with intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=ThinkingSapien;12127529 ]

…]

Quote ] Originally Posted by KingCoil

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

/quote ]​

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

If that’s an inference that you are making on your own that’s fine with me as long as it is attributed as such.

…]

/QUOTE ]
​

If memory serves, I asked everyone to react to my argument in line #1, so let us all keep to that line #1.

QUOTE=KingCoil;12126960 ]

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

1. Therefore there is a cause of the universe, that is logic.
2. Therefore there is God creator cause of the universe, that is logic.

The whole argument is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Now, I will just request you to concentrate on argument line #1.

Please keep to #1, because it is better for the sake of focus and thus my comprehension of your ideas.

/QUOTE ]
​

So, ThinkingS, please just concentrate on reacting to my line #1, and keep to intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Okay, this is what you want me to do.

quote=ThinkingS ]

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

If that’s an inference that you are making on your own that’s fine with me as long as it is attributed as such.

/quote ]

Please be definite what exactly you want me to do, tell you the theory etc., or what?

I say, “1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.”

Suppose, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, so that we will not be into vague directions: there are three statements in line #1:

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,
  [iii] that is the fact.

Is that all right with you, to just choose one statement from the above three, and we will talk on it, your choice?

LIke this:

• The universe has a beginning, [No or yes, then explain.]
  [ii] science tells us, [No or yes, then explain.]
  [iii] that is the fact, [No or yes, then explain.]

You will now complain that I am dictating on you how you are to react to my #1 line.

No, I am not dictating on you, but just suggesting to you to be concisely and precisely most specific on what you are reacting to.

Besides, why should it be difficult for you to just keep to one choice of the three choices up there above?

At this point you will go away and say that I am dictating on you, etc., etc., etc.

No; but I am the author of this thread and it is possible and easy for you to make a choice, then we can continue from there.

Or you will complain that at that rate we will never get to finish anything.

No, that is not correct, we will finish faster than otherwise, just keep to my suggestion to pick one of the three choices above, and then we will witness how the whole issue is already settled so quickly, without going into all kinds of directions to no purpose at all, except for people to display their irrelevant learning.

KingCoil**

 

[Skeptic92]

Your argument is essentially a Kalam Cosmological Argument attempting to use Scientific evidence to justify the premises. The argument can be summarised thusly;

That which begins to exist, necessitates an extrinsic efficient cause
The Universe began to exist
Therefore the universe requires an extrinsic efficient cause.

I answer that; the major is undeniable, as anything which begins to exist was previous in potency to its act of existence. Therefore as per the principle of causality that which is in potency can only actualised by a being that is itself in act. The minor is what you are attempting to justify using scientific evidence. Whilst I would argue that through Vilenkins book “Many Worlds in One” you are indeed correct; and it appears modern cosmology does indeed imply that the Universe has an absolute beginning in a finite-past time.

I would, however, answer that this does not not yield certainty. The argument you are presenting is probabilistic and not demonstrative. If you want to make the argument demonstrative you need to make an argument from the Ontology of time which demonstrates that time is a causal series ordered per se, and therefore could not, even in principle, infinitely regress.

I believe the argument I presented- the defence of the first 2 premises which demonstrate the existence of the monotheistic God is available on the previous page. The further premises I could go through which would get us the whole way to the Classical Theistic God. I am unsure if the form of KCA you are presenting could can us much further than Deism, rather than Classical Theism.

 

[KingCoil]

QUOTE=runningdude;12127589 ]

quote ]
Originally Posted by KingCoil

Here is my argument for God existing on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

Let me just now give you again my argument on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, again, for the existence of God in concept the creator of the universe.

    1. The universe has a beginning, science tells us, that is the fact.

/quote ]
​

Earlier in this thread, I already demonstrated that science has does not definitively prove that the universe has a beginning. The current best models suggest as much due to the second law of thermodynamics, but this “law” could be wrong.

/quote ]
​

You mean one day science will tell us what, that the universe has always existed?

Or that it is probable or at least possible that one day science will tell us that the universe has always existed?

So, tell me that you don’t accept as a fact from science that the universe has a beginning?

You will say that it is only what, a theory?

And that one day science will tell us what, another theory?

Like that the universe has always existed.

Anyway, be coming out clearly, tell me that the universe has always existed, and that is a probable theory of science some day in the future.

Tell you what, you come out clearly and say that the universe has always existed, or that the universe has a beginning, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts.

You will say that you are just telling me that one day science can tell us that the universe has always existed, or that it has definitively concluded and no longer any theory that the universe has a beginning.

You are into [ii] of the three choices below:

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us, This one [ii]. ]
  [iii] that is the fact.

Okay, let me just ask you, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, are you definitively certain that science will tell us one day that the universe has always existed?

Or you have no certainty whatsoever, you are just into saying that science has not definitively proven that the universe has a beginning.

Do you have any certainty whatsoever at all but it is a certainty from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, that the universe has a beginning or it has always existed?

Let me read how you answer my last question immediately the one above, okay?

No, I am not into any dilatory tricks, and we will see that as soon as you answer anyhow you care to the request immediately above.

KingCoil*

 

[polytropos]

If memory serves, I asked everyone to react to my argument in line #1, so let us all keep to that line #1.

He did react to (1). Not to (2) or (3).

Please be definite what exactly you want me to do, tell you the theory etc., or what?

He said, explicitly and definitely, he wanted you to tell him the theory, if you believe that (1) is scientifically supported.

Suppose, from intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, so that we will not be into vague directions: there are three statements in line #1:

• The universe has a beginning,
  [ii] science tells us,
  [iii] that is the fact.

Is that all right with you, to just choose one statement from the above three, and we will talk on it, your choice?*
He already said that he wanted you to substantiate (ii). You haven’t done it; in spite of his request you have asked him again what he means to request, as though he did not say anything to you.

I don’t mean to speak for ThinkingSapien, but this sort of response seems representative. Whenever someone asks you a question about your argument, you repeat it (or some part of it), and then ask them, as if exasperated, what part they could possibly take issue with.

 

[KingCoil]

One does not augment an argument by saying that it is founded on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts. (Nor does it help to state after each step that it is a fact or is logic.)

Noted. ]

…]

* Instruction from forum management: ]*​

forum management:

The following errors occurred with your submission:

1. The text that you have entered is too long (6483 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long.
2. The text that you have entered is too long (6483 characters). Please shorten it to 6000 characters long.

In brief, you are not sure that it is a fact established by science that the universe has a beginning.

And my argument is founded on the finding(?) from science that the universe has a beginning.

You are aware that science is not into what, facts? but only theories?

Let us everyone at this point work to concur on what exactly science or more in particular scientists are into, facts or theories only?

And most in relevance to this thread on intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, how should we take science in our thinking on the question of God as creator of the universe existing: do we just disregard science at all because it is just into theories and it can set up new theories in the future?

So, everyone here, what do we know from science, “[ii] science tells us,” facts or only theories, in regard in particular that the universe has a beginning?

I see that posters here participating appear to be into what science is telling us, and they seem to be broadly in consonance that science does not tell us any facts but only theories.

That is a good focus, now we all let us find out whether science or scientists are into the fact of universe having a beginning or they are only into a theory.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Your argument is essentially a Kalam Cosmological Argument attempting to use Scientific evidence to justify the premises. The argument can be summarised thusly;

That which begins to exist, necessitates an extrinsic efficient cause
The Universe began to exist
Therefore the universe requires an extrinsic efficient cause.

I answer that; the major is undeniable, as anything which begins to exist was previous in potency to its act of existence. Therefore as per the principle of causality that which is in potency can only actualised by a being that is itself in act. The minor is what you are attempting to justify using scientific evidence. Whilst I would argue that through Vilenkins book “Many Worlds in One” you are indeed correct; and it appears modern cosmology does indeed imply that the Universe has an absolute beginning in a finite-past time.

I would, however, answer that this does not not yield certainty. The argument you are presenting is probabilistic and not demonstrative. If you want to make the argument demonstrative you need to make an argument from the Ontology of time which demonstrates that time is a causal series ordered per se, and therefore could not, even in principle, infinitely regress.

I believe the argument I presented- the defence of the first 2 premises which demonstrate the existence of the monotheistic God is available on the previous page. The further premises I could go through which would get us the whole way to the Classical Theistic God. I am unsure if the form of KCA you are presenting could can us much further than Deism, rather than Classical Theism.

I am now inviting everyone to find out whether the universe having a beginning is a fact from science or just a theory from science.

So, I am going to read what scientists say about universe having a beginning, that is a fact or it is a theory only.

Please do likewise.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Okay, everyone, please:

King:

I am now inviting everyone to find out whether the universe having a beginning is a fact from science or just a theory from science.

So, I am going to read what scientists say about universe having a beginning, that is a fact or it is a theory only.

Please do likewise.

Now, if you don’t want at all to factor in science into the issue of God existing as creator of the universe, then just indicate at the head of your posts that you don’t want to factor in science into the issue of God existing as creator of the universe – and I will steer clear from you.

This thread is about intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts coming to the conclusion that God exists as creator of the universe, the universe that is the target of scientists who do occupy themselves with the beginning of the universe – or that the universe has always existed.

So, please be guided accordingly.

Namely, if you don’t want to factor in science, then please indicate at the head of your posts that you don’t want to factor in science.

Otherwise, everyone let us find out what exactly do scientists tell us, that the universe having a beginning is a fact or it is only a theory.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

In brief, you are not sure that it is a fact established by science that the universe has a beginning.

And my argument is founded on the finding(?) from science that the universe has a beginning.

Your argument is allegedly founded on the scientific finding that the universe has a beginning. You still haven’t shown us which scientific finding you are referring to.

Abrogating the question of whether science produces facts or theories, can you at least name the scientist who has found that the universe has a beginning? (Whether that finding is a fact or a theory–it doesn’t matter for now. Just name the scientist.) Since you say that “science tells us” this, I expect that the scientist you cite will have captured the scientific consensus, in revealing is finding.

Otherwise, everyone let us find out what exactly do scientists tell us, that the universe having a beginning is a fact or it is only a theory.

I don’t understand what you mean here. Before you said that science tells us that the universe begins. Presumably you had particular scientists in mind in making this claim, or perhaps just one scientist.

You are aware that science is not into what, facts? but only theories?

It is a rather common view now that science is only into theories which can be confirmed and falsified progressively. I would actually agree that science can uncover, and indeed demonstrate in the classical sense, some facts. For example, Galileo’s finding that the earth’s surface is irregular, Harvey’s finding that the function of the heart is to pump blood, etc. But this isn’t true of all scientific findings; the more theoretical findings are much more conditional. I believe most research into cosmology and astrophysics is of this latter sort. If you disagree, then again, all you need to do is name the scientist whose work you want us to assess.

All of this aside, I am willing to concede (1), so we can move onto the rest of your argument if you’d like.

 

[Skeptic92]

Okay, everyone, please:

Now, if you don’t want at all to factor in science into the issue of God existing as creator of the universe, then just indicate at the head of your posts that you don’t want to factor in science into the issue of God existing as creator of the universe – and I will steer clear from you.

This thread is about intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts coming to the conclusion that God exists as creator of the universe, the universe that is the target of scientists who do occupy themselves with the beginning of the universe – or that the universe has always existed.

So, please be guided accordingly.

Namely, if you don’t want to factor in science, then please indicate at the head of your posts that you don’t want to factor in science.

Otherwise, everyone let us find out what exactly do scientists tell us, that the universe having a beginning is a fact or it is only a theory.

KingCoil

Do you know the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? I have presented you the first two premises of what I’ve termed the “Argument to the Necessary Existent” based upon the arguments of the Angelic Doctor and Avicenna. These are forms of Deductive Reasoning which yield certainty; your argument is an inductive argument that only yields probability. This is the reason I am sceptical of its use value. I have read Vilenkins book (which is what you are referring to) Many Worlds in One (amazon.co.uk/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238/) which goes through why an infinite past time is a Physical impossibility. This does not however get you to the Christian God; it can also hint at a Platonic demiurge, which is not the same as God.

You need to do Metaphysics to get you to God, which is what I have attempted to do. Will you please engage with my argument; otherwise I am going to question your intent. You do not seem to actually want to have a serious debate.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t mean to speak for ThinkingSapien, …]

I think you said it better than I could have. Thanks.

I am making it known that I agree with everything you just said.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

QUOTE=ThinkingSapien;12127529 ]

Why are you putting extra spaces into the quote blocks? This only prevents them from being parsed and presented in a fashion that is more difficult to read.

If memory serves, I asked everyone to react to my argument in line #1, so let us all keep to that line #1.

I think polytropos did a fine job of responding to this. To avoid redundancy take note that I’m in agreement with his response to this.

* The universe has a beginning, [No or yes, then explain.] *
Unknown.
ThinkingSapien;12127749:

A part of the Big Bang theory is that earlier in the existence of the universe all of the material of the universe was concentrated in a common “place” (I’m ignoring how the the expansion of space-time impacts the meaning of the word “place” in this context) and a rapid expansion of this material around 13.74 billion years ago that lead up to the universe that we see today. As to what happened before this or whether or not there is a before this is something that is unknown. The beginning of this expansion is sometimes present by people as the “Beginning of the universe.” However this is the beginning of the universe in the same sense that an egg and cake mix are the beginning of a cake; it’s about the transformation of pre-existing material.

There are varying opinions about what the pre- Big Bang universe may have been like and whether or not there was one but no one really knows…

[ii] science tells us, [No or yes, then explain.]

Nope, science doesn’t tell us this. If it does please state the theory on which the above statement is based.

-][iii] that is the fact, [No or yes, then explain.]/-]

This just seems to be an indirect way of repeating the above. That’s unnecessary. So there’s no need to further evaluate this statement.

You will now complain that I am dictating on you how you are to react to my #1 line.

Nope. You’re behaviour predictions are all incorrect. Let’s ignore them. They are off topic.
​

​

 

[Skeptic92]

Why are you putting extra spaces into the quote blocks? This only prevents them from being parsed and presented in a fashion that is more difficult to read.

I think polytropos did a fine job of responding to this. To avoid redundancy take note that I’m in agreement with his response to this.

Unknown.

This just seems to be an indirect way of repeating the above. That’s unnecessary. So there’s no need to further evaluate this statement.

Nope. You’re behaviour predictions are all incorrect. Let’s ignore them. They are off topic.

You sound like a better, more worthwhile, debating partner…Do you want to discuss and argument for the Existence of God that will be more fruitful then the OP? He seems to be stonewalling all attempts at debate, and hasn’t engaged with the beginning of an Argument I presented on the previous page.