How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

"Wiki" can be edited, this is why I do not care for it.

Go ahead and present what you think the laws of thermo are.

You have no actual evidence for the 'supernatural'. "We are not quite sure yet" does not equal supernatural. And yet, we do have evidence for the natural. "Naturalism" is all we can currently demonstrate.

Are you now backing out and saying inferences cannot be made?

How do you define what is "natural"?

If inference is not based on any evidence, then it is merely speculation. I have yet to see any evidence presented the universe is eternal.

What is your standard for "evidence"?

See Presenting evidence.

What is the evidence for the universe being created? The evidence the universe has a finite age.

Scientists have tools and know how to use them. Do you have the same tools and know how to use them? Here is what 'science' says:

"Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures."

Not sure that you know how to use it. You didn't cite your source also left out a key detail. Here's the source and what you left out:

We discuss cosmological models for an eternal Universe. Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future...

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/1 ... .90.043520

Presenting a model is not presenting evidence reality is actually that way. It is simply a hypothetical proposal and how things could be. Exactly what is the evidence the universe is eternal from that paper?

Then I disagree with your reasoning. EVEN IF 'supernaturalism' was demonstrated to exist, which it hasn't, "we do not know yet" does not automatically equal 'naturalism or supernaturalism'. We simply do not know yet.

Right, "we do not know" doesn't equal anything. It is a rejection of any possible explanation.

What evidence, at all, demonstrates the supernatural? Let's start there. If you can demonstrate the supernatural, then we can add it into the realm of possibilities for the few remaining 'god of the gaps' arguments.

We need to first define what does natural and supernatural mean.

Here's the definition for natural that I propose: things in our universe that are empirically detectable and/or obeys the laws of physics.

Supernatural would be things outside our universe or things inside our universe that do not obey the laws of physics.

And how is the idea the universe is eternal testable and repeatable?

If you have the same tools and know how to use them, then your result would be the same as NASA's I reckon.

How is that even answering my question? But to answer it for you, an eternal universe is not testable or repeatable.

You deny evolutionary theory, but accept all other scientific theories?

I deny anything that doesn't have the evidence and rational logic to support it.

[otseng]

There's only two options I can think of:
1. Universe is eternal and a closed system.
2. Universe is finite in age and an open system.

Option 1 is not possible because of the second law of thermo.

"The second law of thermodynamics states that in a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems never decreases."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

Second Law of Thermodynamics: every energy transfer that takes place will increase the entropy of the universe and reduce the amount of usable energy available to do work (or, in the most extreme case, leave the overall entropy unchanged). In other words, any process, such as a chemical reaction or set of connected reactions, will proceed in a direction that increases the overall entropy of the universe.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap- ... modynamics

The amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing. At some finite point in the life of the universe, there will be no usable energy in the universe. This is called the heat death. At this point, the universe will have a uniform temperature and it's not possible for any work to happen.

The heat death of the universe (also known as the Big Chill or Big Freeze)[1][2] is a hypothesis on the ultimate fate of the universe, which suggests the universe will evolve to a state of no thermodynamic free energy, and will therefore be unable to sustain processes that increase entropy. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_deat ... e_universe

Since we are not experiencing heat death currently, the universe is not option 1.

[otseng]

Christianity is a many-headed entity and doesn't appear to have any particular meaningful or central/foundational philosophy which is agreed on by all those calling themselves Christians.

The belief that a mindful entity created this universe and placed consciousness into that, is no different in principle from the idea of Simulation Theory and rather than address that observation, Christians turn a blind eye to the obvious similarities and remain in denial.

It appears many Christians are content with upholding the illusion of truthfulness rather than having actual truthfulness set them free from said illusions.

Christians blowing their trumpets of self importance attempting to uphold a dying thing and declare it "living" and not only alive and well but "the best"... and perhaps it is the best thing for upholding delusional aggrandising and giving those so inclined, a platform to peddle declarations from.

This would just be random rambling and irrelevant to the discussion and even crossing over to rule infractions.

[POI]

Go ahead and present what you think the laws of thermo are.

It does not matter. Any scientist worth his/her salt is already aware of such laws before applying an inference, based upon following evidence, to the possibility of an eternal universe.

Are you now backing out and saying inferences cannot be made?

No. I'm saying you do not get to conclude 'supernatural' merely based upon what we do not empirically yet know. You can throw it into the pot once you actually demonstrate the 'supernatural' at all.

How do you define what is "natural"?

Anything which resides within materialism, and which also follows any/all natural law. Due to modern science, I reckon the discovery of such content is not yet fully known or revealed. Meaning, we have yet to identify all natural law. This is where theists will sometimes instead employ the 'god of the gaps'.

See Presenting evidence.

What is the evidence for the universe being created? The evidence the universe has a finite age.

I ask because 'evidence' can be spun. "Answersingenesis" and "the creationist museum" come to mind....

Not sure that you know how to use it. You didn't cite your source also left out a key detail. Here's the source and what you left out: Presenting a model is not presenting evidence reality is actually that way. It is simply a hypothetical proposal and how things could be. Exactly what is the evidence the universe is eternal from that paper?

It's from the same source I already provided for you (i.e.): (http://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014Ph ... 20pictures.)

Scientists have tools and know how to use them. They are not just doodling 'models' for funsies, Based upon evidentiary findings, they postulate accordingly. Do you have the same tools and know how to use them? Here is what 'science' says:

"Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures."

What exactly is your pushback here?

a) they are using the tools wrong
b) they are lying to deny an obvious conclusion of 'supernaturalism'
c) other

Right, "we do not know" doesn't equal anything. It is a rejection of any possible explanation.

It means you do not get to conclude 'supernaturalism.' It instead means "we do not know yet". And since we have no actual example of anything 'supernatural' at all, you have quite a bit of work to actually do.

We need to first define what does natural and supernatural mean.

Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'. I say we have not yet discovered all natural law. So, can you actually demonstrate the "supernatural"? Or, are you instead stuck by way of the 'god of the gaps' alone? If you can demonstrate the 'supernatural', we can then throw it into the bin of options for all the stuff not yet resolved.

Here's the definition for natural that I propose: things in our universe that are empirically detectable and/or obeys the laws of physics.

Supernatural would be things outside our universe or things inside our universe that do not obey the laws of physics.

You are assuming all natural law has already been identified. I don't think it has. This is where theism can get crafty and try to shoehorn something in there. And not instead by demonstrating that something 'supernatural' actually exists on its own accord, but instead by instituting the 'god of the gaps' alone. Case/point, if you wanted me to prove Superman, I would need to actually demonstrate Superman.

How is that even answering my question? But to answer it for you, an eternal universe is not testable or repeatable.

I did answer. The quote from the provided link explains.

I deny anything that doesn't have the evidence and rational logic to support it.

You didn't answer my question. You deny evolutionary theory, but accept all other scientific theories?

[William]

For the past 70 pages, we've been discussing ethics and I argued Christianity offers a justification for objective moral values, whereas atheism does not. And we find a similar situation in other areas of philosophy as well, in which Christianity better addresses major philosophical issues and questions better than other worldviews.

Here is one such list of philosophical questions:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Is our universe real?
3. Do we have free will?
4. Does God exist?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can you really experience anything objectively?
7. What is the best moral system?
https://gizmodo.com/8-great-philosophic ... ve-5945801

Unlike the article which states, "These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension", Christianity does offer answers to these questions:

1. Because God created everything.
2. Yes, we are not part of a simulation.
3. Yes, we freely decide between choices.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Christianity offers one of the best moral systems.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

A: Because everything exists within The Creator Mind

2. Is our universe real?

A: Everything that exists is real.

3. Do we have free will?

A: Only within the confines of our human experience.

4. Does God exist?

A: Many Gods exist within The Creator Mind.

5. Is there life after death?

A: The many thousands of reports coming from people who have had Near Death Experiences confirm that there is no "death" that is real. Life goes on and "death" is really a mindful transition between the different experiences which are available within The Creator Mind.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

A: Mindfulness experiences objects. The real question to be asking is whether one can experience objective things truthfully.

7. What is the best moral system?

A: Any based in actual truth.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4170]
The...

Creator Mind Theory.
The Creator Mind is Eternal.
All things experienced are within The Creator Mind.
There is no outside of The Creator Mind.
The Creator Mind is fundamentally material.

...brings with it simplicity and solution.


Creator Mind Theory Summary

Key Concepts:
Eternal and Material Creator Mind:

The Creator Mind is eternal and exists beyond time.
It is fundamentally material, not immaterial.

Vibrational Fields and Creation:

The universe and all its structures are manifestations of the Creator Mind’s vibrational frequencies.
Creation is an ongoing process where the Creator Mind modulates these frequencies to produce various forms and phenomena.

Integration with Science:
Galaxies and Cosmic Structures:

Observed cosmic structures, such as galaxies, can be seen as patterns created by the Creator Mind’s vibrational fields, similar to cymatic patterns formed by sound frequencies.

Quantum Mechanics and Field Theory:

Concepts like wave-particle duality and quantum fields support the idea that material reality is fundamentally vibrational.

Philosophical and Scientific Coherence:
The theory aligns with scientific discoveries by interpreting them through the lens of a unified, vibrational material reality.
It avoids the need for immateriality and ex nihilo creation, offering a coherent explanation for the nature of the universe.

By integrating these elements, the Creator Mind Theory provides a holistic framework that connects metaphysical ideas with empirical scientific observations, fostering a deeper understanding of the universe and our place within it.

[otseng]

Go ahead and present what you think the laws of thermo are.

It does not matter. Any scientist worth his/her salt is already aware of such laws before applying an inference, based upon following evidence, to the possibility of an eternal universe.

Of course it matters. Hand waving away my source and now the definitions is not debating. Of course all scientists accepts the laws of thermo. If all scientists accept it, why do you fail to provide a definition since you reject my citation from Wikipedia?

Are you now backing out and saying inferences cannot be made?

No. I'm saying you do not get to conclude 'supernatural' merely based upon what we do not empirically yet know. You can throw it into the pot once you actually demonstrate the 'supernatural' at all.

I don't see the distinction that you're making. I'm inferring the supernatural exists. Why do I need to empirically demonstrate it exists?

Anything which resides within materialism, and which also follows any/all natural law.

So something can be outside our universe and still be considered natural?

What about a singularity? It doesn't follow any natural laws.

What about the laws of thermo? Do you accept it? How can the universe be eternal if we are not in the heat death?

Due to modern science, I reckon the discovery of such content is not yet fully known or revealed. Meaning, we have yet to identify all natural law.

Science of the gaps again. We don't know what all the answers are, but a naturalistic scientific explanation will eventually come.

I ask because 'evidence' can be spun. "Answersingenesis" and "the creationist museum" come to mind....

Any evidence can be spun, even in peer-reviewed articles. I gave an example of this is with the manipulation of the data for the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud.

They are not just doodling 'models' for funsies, Based upon evidentiary findings, they postulate accordingly.

Models are theoretical constructs, not actual reality. Models are also not evidence for actual reality. I can as well create a model for a universe created by God. Me presenting that model isn't evidence God actually created the universe.

Do you have the same tools and know how to use them? Here is what 'science' says:

"Physical observables show no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever. The early state of inflation is described in two different, but equivalent pictures."

I agree there is no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. What does a singularity have to do with our present state? The singularity only was at the beginning of the universe.

"While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever." is an assertion, it is not evidence.

It means you do not get to conclude 'supernaturalism.' It instead means "we do not know yet". And since we have no actual example of anything 'supernatural' at all, you have quite a bit of work to actually do.

For the explanation for the cause of the universe, there's two options on the table:
1. A supernatural cause
2. We don't know

You accept 2. I accept 1. Why do I not get to conclude 1 since these are the only 2 options?

Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'.

An eternal universe would violate the 2nd law of thermo. Even with this, wouldn't this be "supernatural"?

Or, are you instead stuck by way of the 'god of the gaps' alone? If you can demonstrate the 'supernatural', we can then throw it into the bin of options for all the stuff not yet resolved.

There's a difference in my proposal of God in this instance than all other god of the gaps in the past (god causing rain and thunder, god causing acts that insurance companies won't cover). God of the gaps arguments retreat when a naturalistic answer is found. Here, there is no retreat, but rather a falsifiable position of theism (and in my case Christianity).

I say we have not yet discovered all natural law. So, can you actually demonstrate the "supernatural"?

We have discovered the laws of thermo. And just in this we see violations with an eternal universe with it, which points to the supernatural.

How is that even answering my question? But to answer it for you, an eternal universe is not testable or repeatable.

I did answer. The quote from the provided link explains.

I'll let readers assess if you answered my question.

You didn't answer my question. You deny evolutionary theory, but accept all other scientific theories?

Your question is a false dilemma so there's no need to answer it. There are many other scientific theories I also do not accept. Whatever theory is based on logical argumentation and evidence and is the most tenable explanation out of all the proposed explanations, then that is what I accept.

[POI]

Of course it matters.

No it doesn't, if you understand what I'm telling you. The field of "science" is aware of the law(s) you present. And yet, 'science' still makes inferences to suggest the universe may very well be eternal.

Hand waving away my source and now the definitions is not debating.

Negative. "Wiki" can be edited at will. Hence, I ignore it.

I don't see the distinction that you're making. I'm inferring the supernatural exists. Why do I need to empirically demonstrate it exists?

Well, does "naturalism" empirically exist? Yes. Your reference to the "supernatural" is based purely upon "we do not know yet", which gives you an opportunity to apply the 'god of the gaps'. "Supernaturalism' cannot be demonstrated on its own, unless you can demonstrate it here and now? In which case, we can then, and only then, add it to the list of possibilities for the remaining unknowns.

So something can be outside our universe and still be considered natural?

I'm not sure I understand your question here?

What about a singularity? It doesn't follow any natural laws.

Then it must be 'supernatural'

What about the laws of thermo? Do you accept it? How can the universe be eternal if we are not in the heat death?

I accept that I'm out of my depth, in relation to folks like Sean Carrol and Alan Guth, who have dedicated their lives in the study of these topics and who postulate an eternal universe, based upon following the evidence wherever it leads.

Science of the gaps again. We don't know what all the answers are, but a naturalistic scientific explanation will eventually come.

Think about all the prior unknowns, which became later knowns through 'science'. Did any of them ever yield a "supernatural" causation, when previously thought they might? No. I'm pretty confident "Science" is not done with new discoveries, not by a long shot. But the gaps continue to get smaller and smaller. And based upon your rationale, these remaining 'we-do-not-know-yets' is apparently where god may be hiding out.

Any evidence can be spun

Great. Is there <A> standard to determine WHO exactly is doing the spinning of the presented "evidence"?

Models are theoretical constructs, not actual reality. Models are also not evidence for actual reality. I can as well create a model for a universe created by God. Me presenting that model isn't evidence God actually created the universe.

You would first have to demonstrate this God. Thus far, all you've got for demonstration, is linking this asserted god to 'we do not know yet.' And in the past, when we finally do know or discovery something new, "godidit" never looks to be the answer.

I agree there is no singularity from the infinite past to the infinite future. What does a singularity have to do with our present state? The singularity only was at the beginning of the universe.

"While the Universe is evolving, there is no beginning and no end—the Universe exists forever." is an assertion, it is not evidence.

You already reconciled all 'evidence' can be spun. But I feel I need to ask a real question here, since you seemed to have alluded to this conclusion when I sent the 'Bingo' video clip...

Do you trust 'science', regarding this topic? Or, do you think their real 'hunch' is 'godidit', when saying 'we do not know yet'? It's an honest question.

For the explanation for the cause of the universe, there's two options on the table:
1. A supernatural cause
2. We don't know

You accept 2. I accept 1. Why do I not get to conclude 1 since these are the only 2 options?

I already answered this. The "supernatural" has not been demonstrated at all. Hence, it is not yet an option for consideration. I would love to be shown that the 'supernatural' exists, in any capacity. It would then make it quite easy to add it in as (an option) for why we are here, if any reason.

An eternal universe would violate the 2nd law of thermo. Even with this, wouldn't this be "supernatural"?

'Science' has never thought of this otseng. They just (deny deny deny) to avoid the 'godidit' conclusion.

There's a difference in my proposal of God in this instance than all other god of the gaps in the past (god causing rain and thunder, god causing acts that insurance companies won't cover). God of the gaps arguments retreat when a naturalistic answer is found. Here, there is no retreat, but rather a falsifiable position of theism (and in my case Christianity).

I see them as the same otseng. Your god is apparently only hiding behind the remaining concepts in which have not yet been resolved. The ones that have been resolved, which are many, have not yet revealed anything "supernatural". So. like I said already, fingers crossed.

There are many other scientific theories I also do not accept.

You reject evolutionary theory then?

[otseng]

And yet, 'science' still makes inferences to suggest the universe may very well be eternal.

All I've seen so far is an assertion that it can be eternal. Again, what evidential support is there for it?

Negative. "Wiki" can be edited at will. Hence, I ignore it.

And what you are also ignoring is my request for you to provide the definition of the laws of thermo. Or do you agree with the definition I've provided, even though you don't like Wikipedia?

Well, does "naturalism" empirically exist? Yes.

Don't know what you're asking. "Naturalism" does not exist. Things in nature exist. Also, not all things in nature are empirically detectable or measurable.

Let's point out things in our universe that are not empirically detectable. One is singularities in our universe. They cannot be directly measured or observed. So scientists infer their existence.

"Supernaturalism' cannot be demonstrated on its own, unless you can demonstrate it here and now? In which case, we can then, and only then, add it to the list of possibilities for the remaining unknowns.

There are multiple arguments for the supernatural. This origin of the universe is just one argument. Prior to this we covered morality. And we've spend extensive time covering the resurrection of Jesus. Also I touched on the fine-tuning of the universe.

So something can be outside our universe and still be considered natural?

I'm not sure I understand your question here?

Is the multiverse natural?

What about a singularity? It doesn't follow any natural laws.

Then it must be 'supernatural'

According to your definition, yes.

"Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'."

What about the laws of thermo? Do you accept it? How can the universe be eternal if we are not in the heat death?

I accept that I'm out of my depth, in relation to folks like Sean Carrol and Alan Guth, who have dedicated their lives in the study of these topics and who postulate an eternal universe, based upon following the evidence wherever it leads.

An eternal universe position is held in the extreme minority of scientists. Further, I have yet to see any evidence, rather than just assertions, to support it.

Since I have provided evidence the universe is finite, provided physical laws of the universe, and provided logical argumentation, it supports my position the universe was created supernaturally.

Think about all the prior unknowns, which became later knowns through 'science'.

It's not relevant because I'm not technically making a god of the gaps argument. It's not, "I don't know, so it's god." I'm providing evidence and logical argumentation and also falsification.

Great. Is there <A> standard to determine WHO exactly is doing the spinning of the presented "evidence"?

In the case of Wikipedia, there is a record of all edits. So, this history of edits is the evidence of bad changes.

You would first have to demonstrate this God. Thus far, all you've got for demonstration, is linking this asserted god to 'we do not know yet.'

I have, through the laws of thermo.

Do you trust 'science', regarding this topic?

Science is a tool. Yes, I trust it as a tool. Is it totally reliable? No. Should we believe everything a scientist says? No. Do I value science? Yes. Do I have an undergraduate and graduate degree in science fields? Yes.

The "supernatural" has not been demonstrated at all.

You just admitted a singularity is supernatural. Also violating the laws of thermo would be supernatural.

'Science' has never thought of this otseng. They just (deny deny deny) to avoid the 'godidit' conclusion.

Exactly. They presuppose the supernatural does not exist so they reject all supernatural conclusions.

There's a difference in my proposal of God in this instance than all other god of the gaps in the past (god causing rain and thunder, god causing acts that insurance companies won't cover). God of the gaps arguments retreat when a naturalistic answer is found. Here, there is no retreat, but rather a falsifiable position of theism (and in my case Christianity).

I see them as the same otseng. Your god is apparently only hiding behind the remaining concepts in which have not yet been resolved. The ones that have been resolved, which are many, have not yet revealed anything "supernatural". So. like I said already, fingers crossed.

What concept hasn't been resolved? That the supernatural can exist? I've already provided multiple arguments for the existence of the supernatural.

You reject evolutionary theory then?

Of course, I already stated we can debate next. Do you want to start debating that?

[POI]

All I've seen so far is an assertion that it can be eternal. Again, what evidential support is there for it?

No. I provided a source, which was spun. My prior point is that public figures and arenas, like Sean Carroll, Alan Guth, and NASA, are aware of the laws of thermo and still infer an eternal universe. Seems you are suggesting they all get there based upon 'godidit' denial? This would be quite the conspiracy. Again, "we-do-not-know-yet" does not equal 'supernatural' causation. I've made no assertion that we know the 'origin', if any. So far, all scientific discoveries lead to "naturalism" alone. The time to assume 'supernaturalism' is when 'supernaturalism' has actually been demonstrated. Take Santa Claus for instance. Such a claim defies physics, making him 'supernatural'. How might one go about demonstrating the existence of Santa Claus? Not by merely referencing "not-yet-knowns", right? Well, as I've been saying all along, 'origins' of the universe, if any, is one of the last bastions for you to slap 'godidit' upon. The time to assert 'god' is when 'god' is actually demonstrated. Thousands of years ago, a similar discussion may be had regarding assertion(s) of Thor. We did not yet know the origin of lightening. And not until relatively "recently", did we know.

And what you are also ignoring is my request for you to provide the definition of the laws of thermo. Or do you agree with the definition I've provided, even though you don't like Wikipedia?

You are still missing my point. Part of the scientific community infers an eternal universe, and I'm quite confident any/all laws are already taken into account.

Don't know what you're asking. "Naturalism" does not exist. Things in nature exist. Also, not all things in nature are empirically detectable or measurable.

Seems you've missed my point again. I've been asking for any demonstration of any 'supernaturalism'. Your above response demonstrates you conceded that 'naturalism' exists, at some level. And again, for the stuff yet undiscovered or unknown, is where you would like to plant your flag.

There are multiple arguments for the supernatural. This origin of the universe is just one argument. Prior to this we covered morality. And we've spend extensive time covering the resurrection of Jesus. Also I touched on the fine-tuning of the universe.

The 'origin', if any, is still unknown. Hence, science must be in denial, according to otseng. The readers can read the other aforementioned topics you listed.

Is the multiverse natural?

What a minute, we have actual 'evidence' to infer a multiverse? Isn't the postulation of a "multiverse" from models, and the like, as well? Hmm? Isn't this still under investigation too, just like the (finite/eternal) investigation of the universe?

According to your definition, yes. "Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'."

We know everything there is to know about 'singularities'? "God" must be hiding out here too.

An eternal universe position is held in the extreme minority of scientists. Further, I have yet to see any evidence, rather than just assertions, to support it.

Then you just shot yourself in the proverbial foot. Evolution denial is among the extreme minority of scientists. Scientists claim the evidence is overwhelming that evolution is a thing. They must either be lying, or, maybe it's instead you who are spinning the evidence? Evolution is a theory, while the origin, if any, of the universe is not. No one knows yet.

As I already alluded to before, 'ooo, that's a bingo.'. Your "epistemology" has been exposed. If the topic defies Biblical belief, reject/spin it. If science does not know yet, it must be 'godidit', and science is in denial. Until you can empirically demonstrate any 'supernaturalism', in ANY capacity, like we can with the topic of 'naturalism', you got nutt'n. Hence, we cannot put 'supernaturalism' on the table of viable options.

In the case of Wikipedia, there is a record of all edits. So, this history of edits is the evidence of bad changes.

You just demonstrated that "wiki' is not a reliable source. Thanks. Hence, I ignore them.

I have, through the laws of thermo.

Right, so institutions like NASA, Allen Guth, and Sean Carroll are completely irrational and/or in complete denial.

Science is a tool. Yes, I trust it as a tool. Is it totally reliable? No. Should we believe everything a scientist says? No. Do I value science? Yes. Do I have an undergraduate and graduate degree in science fields? Yes.

Okay. Do you trust NASA, Sean Carroll, and Alan Guth, when they infer an eternal universe, based upon their inference of evidence?

Exactly.

Of course, I already stated we can debate next. Do you want to start debating that?

Then you are in "science" denial. Which is one of the two reasons you infer god.

1) Reject theory which conflicts with (your) specific Biblical beliefs
2) Rubberstamp a god upon the not-yet-known.

*********************************

There might as well be an adjacent thread topic called "How Can We Trust 'Science" if it's Not Inerrant?"

At the end of the day, we trust science all the time without extensively testing how and/or why what it says, actually works. This is why I repeatedly speak of 'faith'. However, we can often times repeatably test 'science', but where religion is concerned, maybe not-so-much. To this day, I cannot wrap my head around how 'time' and 'gravity' actually works. But since these two concepts do not pose much of a threat to Bible assertions, they are likely not addressed. Science is hard. Take an Organic Chemistry class, for example. Many drop out or flunk. Science is defined, where religion, even under the umbrella of Christianity, is NOT. Hence, there is no clear target to address.