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]

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.

I'm asking for what evidence do they present the universe is eternal. If you cannot produce it, it is simply the argument from authority. Not only is it fallacious, but it is placing your faith in what someone else believes.

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.

Sounds more like ranting and a repetition of things you've already said.

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.

So what if part of the scientific community believes something? One can find many different claims from the scientific community.

What if I simply argued by presenting beliefs from part of the Christian community? Who cares really. What is important instead is their justification for their belief and is it based on evidence and logical reasoning. This is what I'm asking for.

Seems you've missed my point again. I've been asking for any demonstration of any 'supernaturalism'.

That is why I keep going back to if making an inference is allowable in "demonstrating" something to be true. Do you agree or disagree that inferences are allowed to demonstrate something to actually exist?

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.

With the origin of the universe, we see another dead end that science has reached. Modern science can only reach so far in its methodology.

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?

You're the one who brought by Alan Guth. He believes in other universes...

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.

With your definition of natural, we have things that are not natural. Thus the supernatural exists. Yes, God can be included in the supernatural since it also fits your definition.

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?

Actually, with your logic, it's the reverse. Since you brought up a minority position among scientists that the universe is eternal, then it's inconsistent to bring up a majority position among evolutionary scientists.

But the number of scientists believing something should not be the basis for what is plausible. Again, it goes back to the evidence and logical reasoning.

Evolution is a theory, while the origin, if any, of the universe is not. No one knows yet.

We can add the origin of life also to no one knows yet.

Your "epistemology" has been exposed.

I've been consistently stating my epistemology. A justified true belief should be based on rational argumentation and evidence. Do you agree or disagree with this? Or should a belief just be based on what an authority believes?

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

The way I see it is you ignore anything that is contrary to what you want to believe. Again, if you do not accept the definitions of the laws of thermo that I've presented, please present your own source on what they are.

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

Appeal to authority fallacy.

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

I'm all for inference (which you seem to be against). But an inference must be based on actual evidence. So, again, what is the evidence that they have for an eternal universe?

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.

No, it's not me that is in science denial. I completely understand what is science. I've also explained the philosophy of science and the underpinning assumptions and the limitations of science.

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'.

I'll let readers assess who is the one appealing to faith and who is the one appealing to evidential reasoning.

[POI]

I'm asking for what evidence do they present the universe is eternal. If you cannot produce it, it is simply the argument from authority

You provided definition(s) for 'evidence', but as we discussed, evidence is apparently both a) "subjective" as well as b) all evidence can apparently be spun.

I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that's really it. Thus, I must refer to the ones in these fields to explain better than I. Just like I would do for inferring about evidence for blackholes, string theory, etc etc etc. I'm out of my depth explaining them on my own accord. But wouldn't you know it, this topic is not yet resolved. "We-do-not-know-yet" is the current standing, regarding (finite vs eternal). I do not need to be an expert to surmise this particular conclusion. It is not asserted to be scientific theory, like cell, gravity, germ, evolution, etc...

The video below is not a 'gotcha' towards the conclusion of eternal, but instead demonstrates that the great debate continues. And I sincerely doubt the ones on the side of infinity are 'godidit' deniers, unless you can demonstrate that is their direct motivation. Can you do that? Are they completely irrational in their reasoning to instead favor God denial? Proving they are atheists alone would not demonstrate your hypothesis. Case/point, I'm a skeptic which would still love to receive evidence for an all-loving supernatural agency. But sadly, I honestly have not directly received or seen any. I guess that's why they call it 'faith', huh?

As I get older, mortality is looming ever closer. I just feel the "evidence" for god is lacking, to say the least, and feel it is nothing more than a pipedream --- driven by comfort, the god of the gaps (as you continue to demonstrate here), 'godidit' is much easier to understand, evolution had a hand in having most/all humans today to prefer "intentional agency" for the 'not-yet-knowns', etc.....

So what if part of the scientific community believes something? One can find many different claims from the scientific community.

What if I simply argued by presenting beliefs from part of the Christian community? Who cares really. What is important instead is their justification for their belief and is it based on evidence and logical reasoning. This is what I'm asking for.

My point being, again, is that if any scientist is worth their salt, they are already aware of all scientific laws in question. You honestly think it never occurred to them about the law(s) of thermo? In spite of the law(s) you mention, the great debate continues. Hence, the ones who are on the side of infinity MUST all be "godidit" deniers.

That is why I keep going back to if making an inference is allowable in "demonstrating" something to be true. Do you agree or disagree that inferences are allowed to demonstrate something to actually exist?

No otseng. Ghosts must first be demonstrated before ghosts can then be considered as a viable inclusive option to a (not-yet-known). Ghosts fall into the category of 'supernatural'. Where-as postulating an eternal universe can be in the category of the "natural". As I stated prior, for which you hand-waved away, the time to believe in Santa, is when he is actually demonstrated. If you demonstrated Santa or Superman, 'supernatural' would then ALSO immediately be empirically demonstrated, since they defy natural law. So please otseng, demonstrate anything 'supernatural' at all, so we can place this option on the proverbial table. So far, the only options fall under naturalism.

With the origin of the universe, we see another dead end that science has reached. Modern science can only reach so far in its methodology.

Current dead end = "god". Got it.

“God of the gaps” refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention.

You're the one who brought by Alan Guth. He believes in other universes...

And 'multiverses', under naturalism, is yet another unresolved topic debated by scientists who are aware of all the existing current known and not-yet completely known scientific laws.

With your definition of natural, we have things that are not natural. Thus the supernatural exists. Yes, God can be included in the supernatural since it also fits your definition.

Negative. We do not know everything yet. And the time to infer the 'supernatural' is when it has first been demonstrated. Appealing to unknowns is not an inferred demonstration for fairies, ghosts, god(s), leprechauns, or anything in the "supernatural" asserted realm. The time to consider the 'supernatural' is when the 'supernatural' has first been demonstrated. Thus far, your methodology is fallacious in getting there, hence, is to be ignored.

But the number of scientists believing something should not be the basis for what is plausible. Again, it goes back to the evidence and logical reasoning.

Right, and this is where what I said above comes into play. (i.e.) "but as we discussed, evidence is apparently both a) "subjective" as well as b) all evidence can apparently be spun." I guess this is why, no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will still argue a young earth, a flat earth, deny evolutionary theory, etc............ And much of this is to favor their interpretation of the Bible over anything else.

We can add the origin of life also to no one knows yet.

Yes, "abiogenesis" is not theoretical (yet), like evolution.

I've been consistently stating my epistemology.

Yes, and the readers will decide who's more on point, you or I, regarding your true epistemology.

The way I see it is you ignore anything that is contrary to what you want to believe. Again, if you do not accept the definitions of the laws of thermo that I've presented, please present your own source on what they are.

You continue to either A) miss or b) evade my same repeated point. Either way, I'm done explaining.

Appeal to authority fallacy.

I actually understand why you would apply this, but this is not why I asked this question at all. It speaks to what I asked above. If you answered it above, then I will not address it here again.

No, it's not me that is in science denial. I completely understand what is science. I've also explained the philosophy of science and the underpinning assumptions and the limitations of science.

Then why waste your time here? Change the world. Introduce data for peer review. Throw your hat into the ring to refute theoretical sciences, like evolution, and whatever other scientific theories you deny. We will await your grand prize(s). And if it does not come, it's because they want to suppress the truth, ala Romans 1:19-22.

[otseng]

I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that's really it.

Bottom line, you only appeal to the argument from authority in this debate. You have not provided anything other than a few scientists that claim the universe is eternal. And you have not provided their evidence or arguments why they believe this.

Just like I would do for inferring about evidence for blackholes, string theory, etc etc etc.

It is special pleading if scientists can use inference, but Christians cannot use inference to demonstrate God exists.

The video below is not a 'gotcha' towards the conclusion of eternal, but instead demonstrates that the great debate continues.
https://shorturl.at/erN53

The video discusses the steady state theory of the universe (which is not a new theory as the clickbait title suggests). This has been abandoned by cosmologists decades ago.

This post, the latest in my series about cosmology, talks about the Steady State theory. This is an elegant alternative theory to the Big Bang, which was very popular among astronomers in the 1950s, but is now obsolete.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

What is one major problem with it? Because it violates the first law of thermo. This by itself would make it a supernaturalistic explanation since it violates the known laws of physics.

The Steady State theory gets round this by assuming that new matter is continuously created out of nothing at the incredibly small rate of 1 atom of hydrogen per 6 cubic kilometers of space per year.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

Why was this theory proposed? Because atheists do not like the idea of a universe that was created.

One of the elegant features of the Steady State theory is that because the Universe is infinitely old the question of its origin doesn’t arise. It has always existed. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory has no point far back in time when a ‘creation event’ occurred causing the Universe to come into being. To Fred Hoyle, who was a committed atheist, this was a particularly attractive feature of the theory.

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

Why did cosmologists eventually abandon the steady state theory? Because it could not explain the CMBR.

However the real the nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory was the discovery in 1965 of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a weak background radiation which fills the whole of space and is the same in all directions. In the Big Bang theory this radiation is a relic or snapshot from the time the Universe was young and hot and was predicted before it was discovered. However, in the Steady State theory it is almost impossible to explain the origin of this radiation.

In the words of Stephen Hawking:
‘the Steady State theory was what Karl Popper would call a good scientific theory: it made definite predictions, which could be tested by observation, and possibly falsified. Unfortunately for the theory, they were falsified’

https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/2 ... te-theory/

My point being, again, is that if any scientist is worth their salt, they are already aware of all scientific laws in question.

Appeal to authority fallacy again.

You honestly think it never occurred to them about the law(s) of thermo?

The steady state theory is an example where they did not address the laws of thermo. And it is clearly a violation of the first law. And he was not looked on well by the scientific community:

Clayton says the Nobel Committee's decision probably had more to do with Hoyle's rejection of scientific orthodoxy than any missing equation. "Fred marginalized himself," Clayton says. "He made himself look like a sorehead who only cared about the steady state universe and life from outer space. … He made himself look foolish."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -equation/

In spite of the law(s) you mention, the great debate continues. Hence, the ones who are on the side of infinity MUST all be "godidit" deniers.

And what we see is the evidence and logical deductions of cosmology lead to the existence of the supernatural. Since atheists cannot accept the supernatural exists, they have to resort "I don't know".

You're the one who brought by Alan Guth. He believes in other universes...

And 'multiverses', under naturalism, is yet another unresolved topic debated by scientists who are aware of all the existing current known and not-yet completely known scientific laws.

Yes, another "I don't know". I'll also add special pleading. If an intelligent being exists outside our universe, then immediately the skeptics balk. But if it's a multitude of other universes outside our universe, then that's totally acceptable.

The time to consider the 'supernatural' is when the 'supernatural' has first been demonstrated. Thus far, your methodology is fallacious in getting there, hence, is to be ignored.

Per your definition of natural, the sheer fact singularities exists demonstrates the supernatural exists.

"Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'."
viewtopic.php?p=1150753#p1150753

And we can add other universes to supernaturalistic explanations.

I guess this is why, no matter how much evidence is presented, some people will still argue a young earth, a flat earth, deny evolutionary theory, etc............ And much of this is to favor their interpretation of the Bible over anything else.

It's the other way around. No matter how much evidence is presented to support Biblical claims, it will never be accepted by committed skeptics. Even if skeptics have no evidence or logical arguments to back up their claims, they will simply say, "I don't know". And we see this with the current debate where I have presented my evidence. And when asked for evidence to support an eternal universe, none has been presented. The only response continues to be using fallacious arguments like the appeal to authority.

The way I see it is you ignore anything that is contrary to what you want to believe. Again, if you do not accept the definitions of the laws of thermo that I've presented, please present your own source on what they are.

You continue to either A) miss or b) evade my same repeated point. Either way, I'm done explaining.

Who then is the one who has true epistemology if you aren't even willing to present a definition?

If all of this is beyond your understanding ("I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that's really it."), that's fine. But don't go trying to debate this and continually avoid answering basic requests and pretending you're actually offering any refutation to my arguments.

Then why waste your time here? Change the world. Introduce data for peer review. Throw your hat into the ring to refute theoretical sciences, like evolution, and whatever other scientific theories you deny. We will await your grand prize(s). And if it does not come, it's because they want to suppress the truth, ala Romans 1:19-22.

My attempt is through this forum. I do other things as well, but this is my little contribution to the world.

[POI]

Please change the title of this exchange. I'm not advocating for or against 'steady state'. See below...

I admit cosmology and theoretical physics are not my fields of expertise. I took some classes to fulfill my medical goals, decades ago, but that's really it.

Bottom line, you only appeal to the argument from authority in this debate. You have not provided anything other than a few scientists that claim the universe is eternal. And you have not provided their evidence or arguments why they believe this.

I have, but you spun it, and also mentioned 'models'. If the 'evidence' was "hard hitting," in either direction - (finite/eternal), it would no longer be continued to be a) a real great debate, and it would also b) be theoretical - like germ, cell, gravity, and evolution.

It is special pleading if scientists can use inference, but Christians cannot use inference to demonstrate God exists.

I've explained why it is not. Demonstrate anything under 'supernaturalism' at all, and you can then infer 'supernaturalism'. All inferences to a conclusion, by science', are under the umbrella of 'naturalism' alone.

The video discusses the steady state theory of the universe (which is not a new theory as the clickbait title suggests). This has been abandoned by cosmologists decades ago.

Many videos, especially nowadays, are "clickbait." The overarching point is that there is still much work to do. If you watch until near the end, new discoveries are still being explored. 'Science' is not even close to solving all of the world's problems or unanswered questions. And maybe it will not be able to ever solve all of them? But this does not then mean you get to shoehorn 'god' in there, as an unproven placeholder. 'God' needs to be demonstrated on its own merit(s). And stating that 'Science' comes to a dead-end. even if this were true, does not demonstrate the 'supernatural'. Sorry. It just means we either do not know (yet) and/or do not have the proper tool(s) to test any further. Not ever knowing what is on the other side of the fence does not then ever mean 'god'.

What is one major problem with it? Because it violates the first law of thermo. This by itself would make it a supernaturalistic explanation since it violates the known laws of physics.

The video states, itself, that the "steady state" has pretty much been abandoned in peer review, until further notice. Hence, I'm not arguing FOR or against the "steady state". However, the debate still continues with other 'model(s)' for debate (regardless), -- (see the end of the video around minute-12 and beyond).

The over-arching point(s) I'm making, outside this video, is that (eternal vs finite) is not settled and placed into the category of theoretical, like germ, cell, gravity, and evolution.

Appeal to authority fallacy again.

You again missed my point. Allow me to draw a parallel.

(This):

-- I already assume Dr. Craig is aware of all of the Bible before some atheist debater comes along to pose a contradiction/other. The question then becomes, is Dr. Craig spinning/deflecting/rationalizing to protect the Bible or not?

(Verses this):

-- I already assume NASA, Alan Guth, and Sean Carroll are aware of the laws of thermo. before some Christian comes along to pose a contradiction/other. The question then becomes, is/are NASA, Guth, and Carroll 'spinning/deflecting/rationalizing' to protect science or not?

And what we see is the evidence and logical deductions of cosmology lead to the existence of the supernatural. Since atheists cannot accept the supernatural exists, they have to resort "I don't know".

Yet again, the time to entertain the 'supernatural' is exactly when anything 'supernatural' has been demonstrated. I've already explained ad nauseum.

Yes, another "I don't know". I'll also add special pleading. If an intelligent being exists outside our universe, then immediately the skeptics balk. But if it's a multitude of other universes outside our universe, then that's totally acceptable.

I again ask, please demonstrate that all scientists who state 'I don't know' is actually secret code for "godidit, and I can't say that out loud". Can you do that?

Per your definition of natural, the sheer fact singularities exists demonstrates the supernatural exists. "Anything which a) breaks known natural law and b) breaks yet-to-be-known natural law would be defined as 'supernatural'."

Please stop with the strawman. You already conceded we do not yet know all there is to know about 'singularities'. Which then means we do not yet know if a 'singularity' does or does not break "naturalism" at all. As I keep telling you, science is in perpetual discovery mode. You, as a "scientist", should know this more than anyone. At this point, your epistemology has been exposed and now you need to demonstrate your 'hunch', that 'scientists' like NASA, Allan Guth, and Sean Carroll, deliberately and illogically deny 'godidit'. You have yet to make that case at all.

It's the other way around. No matter how much evidence is presented to support Biblical claims, it will never be accepted by committed skeptics.

Incorrect. The Bible is not well defined, at all. Case/point, IS Genesis literal or not, where it speaks about expressed physical events? Since we cannot ask the author, theists get to spin these stories every-which-way. There exists a perpetual moving target which cannot be resolved. If we at least knew, for sure, when/if a local/global flood was supposed to take place, that would be an EXCELLENT start to at least reconcile whether or not the Bible's claim comport with 'scientific' discovery or not? If we knew, then the Bible may very well comport with reality, in the physical sense. Maybe "the flood" was just a metaphor? Skeptics could then address a fixed target. But we do not even have that, because the author(s) are dead, and all the prayers in the world will not manifest AN ANSWER from the claimed almighty who is said to initiate all these "events" in the first place.

So no, it is certainly not the other way around. Theoretical science is not a moving target. The position is clear. And yet, there exists individuals, like yourself, which still do not accept a position, in light of 'overwhelming evidence' to support the scientific theory. This raises the question.

A) Is "science" in cahoots to deny 'godidit'? Or..
B) is it instead more likely your epistemology is shining through here, and any 'scientific' propositions which challenges your direct beliefs about the Bible are to be spun accordingly?

Even if skeptics have no evidence or logical arguments to back up their claims, they will simply say, "I don't know". And we see this with the current debate where I have presented my evidence. And when asked for evidence to support an eternal universe, none has been presented.

Does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence? Meaning, where exactly IS this absent god? Can you please produce him for me?

So far, all you've given us is --> Current dead end = "god". Sorry, that ain't gonna fly.

But don't go trying to debate this and continually avoid answering basic requests and pretending you're actually offering any refutation to my arguments.

The field itself has to currently admit no answer yet. It's still up for debate. And (your position) is because 'science' wants to deny 'godidit.' You want to offer your "conclusion" before the problem has actually been solved. Heck, there still exists a frenzy of debate and disagreement regarding this topic, which means there is still much more work to do scientifically. Unlike theoretical topics like germ, cell, gravity, and evolution, these are the topics in which theists, like yourself, wish to hang their hat upon. And it only exposed the "god of the gaps" in full black-and-white. As I already explained.

My attempt is through this forum. I do other things as well, but this is my little contribution to the world.

This forum will do nothing to change the world, I'm afraid. No one here will change their minds or positions. I do appreciate that you have it here, for folks like myself to exchange ideas. So, thank you for that! But if you feel your positions merit true investigation, offer them up for peer review and change the world we live in

[otseng]

Please change the title of this exchange. I'm not advocating for or against 'steady state'.

Don't have to ask me to change it, you can change the title for your own posts.

I have, but you spun it, and also mentioned 'models'. If the 'evidence' was "hard hitting," in either direction - (finite/eternal), it would no longer be continued to be a) a real great debate, and it would also b) be theoretical - like germ, cell, gravity, and evolution.

I'm correcting, not spinning. I explained presenting a model is not presenting evidence. And who's the one spinning if I've asked a basic request to provide definitions for the laws of thermo but then you respond by saying you're done explaining?

And what "hard hitting" evidence have you presented? Hypothetical models? Assertions from scientists? YouTube videos on obsolete theories?

It is special pleading if scientists can use inference, but Christians cannot use inference to demonstrate God exists.

I've explained why it is not. Demonstrate anything under 'supernaturalism' at all, and you can then infer 'supernaturalism'. All inferences to a conclusion, by science', are under the umbrella of 'naturalism' alone.

This is hiding behind "science" again because it assumes naturalism is true. Your argument is thus circular.

My point here though is not emphasizing the supernatural, but emphasizing the use of inference to come to a conclusion. It should not matter what the result is, if the evidence and inference leads to a conclusion, it is a valid argument by itself, regardless if it is contrary to what one wants to believe.

Skeptics appeal to "science" because it by default excludes any supernaturalistic explanation. But even with this, as we've seen with your definition of natural/supernatural, scientists are already violating this assumption. We see this with singularities in our universe and with other universes outside our universe. This is just the beginning of things postulated that we cannot empirically measure and have no idea how they work. They are all just a bunch of ad hoc ideas that are presented to hold up their ideas. But with the breakdown of violation of the basic definitions and assumptions, we see it cannot logically hold together.

Many videos, especially nowadays, are "clickbait."

And yet you critique me of citing Wikipedia?

The overarching point is that there is still much work to do. If you watch until near the end, new discoveries are still being explored.

I'm not going to waste my time watching an entire video that is clickbait and discussing obsolete theories. If there's a relevant thing in the video, quote what it says instead of just posting the video and expect me to watch the entire thing.

'Science' is not even close to solving all of the world's problems or unanswered questions. And maybe it will not be able to ever solve all of them? But this does not then mean you get to shoehorn 'god' in there, as an unproven placeholder. 'God' needs to be demonstrated on its own merit(s).

Nobody is claiming science is even close to solving all things. As a matter of fact, it solves very little. Even basic things as gravity scientists have no idea how it works. We don't even know what exactly is light. Sure, we can describe those things, but we don't really know what those things are.

I'm not "shoehorning" God as an explanation. I'm not even presenting a god of the gaps argument. What I am doing is presenting the laws of physics and logically arguing for a supernatural causation. Do I claim I'm doing "science"? No. Because the tool of science automatically rejects any supernatural explanation (which I argue scientists are already violating this). What I am doing is using logical reasoning and deduction. And the only way to counter my argument is to assume the supernatural does not exist.

And stating that 'Science' comes to a dead-end. even if this were true, does not demonstrate the 'supernatural'.

That's why I'm not claiming I'm making a scientific argument, but a logical argument. It's not like science is the only game in town to arrive at truth. As a matter of fact, as you say, "'Science' is not even close to solving all of the world's problems or unanswered questions." Fundamentally, we have to use logic (which science itself is based on) to arrive at truth.

It just means we either do not know (yet) and/or do not have the proper tool(s) to test any further. Not ever knowing what is on the other side of the fence does not then ever mean 'god'.

It just means "science" cannot arrive at all truth (whether it means a naturalistic explanation and especially a supernaturalistic explanation).

The over-arching point(s) I'm making, outside this video, is that (eternal vs finite) is not settled and placed into the category of theoretical, like germ, cell, gravity, and evolution.

Nothing in science is settled. In principle, everything in science should be falsifiable. So, nobody, including me, is saying anything in science is settled. Even our understanding of germs, cells, gravity, and evolution are not settled either.

You again missed my point. Allow me to draw a parallel.

-- I already assume Dr. Craig is aware of all of the Bible before some atheist debater comes along to pose a contradiction/other. The question then becomes, is Dr. Craig spinning/deflecting/rationalizing to protect the Bible or not?

(Verses this):

-- I already assume NASA, Alan Guth, and Sean Carroll are aware of the laws of thermo. before some Christian comes along to pose a contradiction/other. The question then becomes, is/are NASA, Guth, and Carroll 'spinning/deflecting/rationalizing' to protect science or not?

How can one tell if one is spinning/deflecting/rationalizing? Bottom line, it should be based on logical reasoning and evidence. If one side fails to provide these, but instead just use fallacious arguments and no evidential support, then they are spinning it.

Yet again, the time to entertain the 'supernatural' is exactly when anything 'supernatural' has been demonstrated. I've already explained ad nauseum.

Yes, you've stated this ad nauseum. And as I've explained as well, I've demonstrated it through inference and evidence.

I again ask, please demonstrate that all scientists who state 'I don't know' is actually secret code for "godidit, and I can't say that out loud". Can you do that?

Why do I need to do that if science cannot use the supernatural as an explanation? It's a meaningless request.

Which then means we do not yet know if a 'singularity' does or does not break "naturalism" at all.

Actually, we do know. The known laws of physics do not apply with singularities.

"A singularity is a point where gravity is so intense that space, time, and the laws of physics, break down."
https://astronomynow.com/2016/02/20/fiv ... elativity/

"Singularities are points that when mathematically described give an infinite value and suggest areas of the universe where the laws of physics would cease to exist — i.e. points at the beginning of the universe and at the center of black holes."
https://scitechdaily.com/a-quantum-phys ... y-problem/

Could it be we later have a naturalistic explanation in the future for singularities? Could be. But at the moment, we don't. They are beyond the ability for our current physics to explain them.

To be clear, I'm not arguing god-did-it with singularities. I'm simply pointing out the definition of naturalism is also breaking down and pointing to the supernatural.

The big hangup I see is the baggage the word "supernatural" has. All I mean is it is not natural. Supernatural conjures up ghosts and goblins, angels and demons, etc. Though the supernatural could contain these things, all I'm claiming is there exists things beyond our natural world or things in our natural world beyond our physical laws.

The Bible is not well defined, at all.

Why this standard the Bible has to be "well defined"? Not even science is well defined since it violates its own definition of naturalism.

If we at least knew, for sure, when/if a local/global flood was supposed to take place, that would be an EXCELLENT start to at least reconcile whether or not the Bible's claim comport with 'scientific' discovery or not?

Actually, I've spent considerable time on a global flood and presenting evidence and logical arguments to support it. See Start discussing flood.

A) Is "science" in cahoots to deny 'godidit'? Or..
B) is it instead more likely your epistemology is shining through here, and any 'scientific' propositions which challenges your direct beliefs about the Bible are to be spun accordingly?

False dichotomy. Again, science assumes naturalism to be true, therefore it cannot allow God to be an explanation.

Meaning, where exactly IS this absent god? Can you please produce him for me?

Nobody is claiming God can be "produced". Are you saying something needs to be produced in front of your eyes in order for you to believe something could exist?

So far, all you've given us is --> Current dead end = "god". Sorry, that ain't gonna fly.

This would be an example of spinning. What I have given is evidence and logical arguments for a positive case of a supernatural creator. And I'll be summarizing it soon. And I hope you'll likewise give your summary argument and evidence for an eternal universe.

The field itself has to currently admit no answer yet. It's still up for debate. And (your position) is because 'science' wants to deny 'godidit.' You want to offer your "conclusion" before the problem has actually been solved.

If I gave the Christian version of this to Biblical claims, I'm sure skeptics would not accept it.

Christianity itself has to currently admit no answer yet. It's still up for debate. And (your position) is because 'theology' wants to say 'godidit.' You want to offer your "conclusion" before the problem has actually been solved.

This forum will do nothing to change the world, I'm afraid. No one here will change their minds or positions.

My goals are not that ambitious.

[POI]

Otseng's positions?

Theism = A bunch of inferences, without actual demonstrations of those inferences, leads to "supernaturalism" -- Which logically leads to 'god'.

Science = A bunch of inferences, without actual demonstrations of those inferences, leads to 'I don't know." -- Which is intellectually dishonest and avoiding the 'god option'. Does 'I don't know' have a HARD EXCLUDE for 'god'? Doesn't God have the ability to provide everyone with evidence to be convinced, which would then negate some scientist's hard denial anyways?

I'm correcting, not spinning. I explained presenting a model is not presenting evidence. And who's the one spinning if I've asked a basic request to provide definitions for the laws of thermo but then you respond by saying you're done explaining?

Point 1) Is the universe finite or eternal? No theoretical 'conclusion' has been given. Hence, the great debate continues.
Point 2) The laws of thermo have already been taken into consideration, regarding the on-going debate (finite vs eternal).

My point here though is not emphasizing the supernatural, but emphasizing the use of inference to come to a conclusion. It should not matter what the result is, if the evidence and inference leads to a conclusion, it is a valid argument by itself, regardless if it is contrary to what one wants to believe.

Your inference leads to 'god', does it not? Has 'god' ever been demonstrated anywhere, or only inferred everywhere? As already stated, the time to infer something or someone, is after the inferred is demonstrated to at least exist. Can you do that? Otherwise, why add 'god' into the viable list of options? See below when I touch on "Santa Claus" in bold. And no, it's not to be sarcastic or patronizing.

Skeptics appeal to "science" because it by default excludes any supernaturalistic explanation. But even with this, as we've seen with your definition of natural/supernatural, scientists are already violating this assumption. We see this with singularities in our universe and with other universes outside our universe. This is just the beginning of things postulated that we cannot empirically measure and have no idea how they work. They are all just a bunch of ad hoc ideas that are presented to hold up their ideas. But with the breakdown of violation of the basic definitions and assumptions, we see it cannot logically hold together.

Maybe 'science' is not the correct tool to prove or disprove 'god'? Or maybe instead, 'science' is necessary, but not the only tool?

As new discoveries roll on, we see where 'god(s)' aren't. Case/point, Thor is not in the clouds throwing down lightning bolts. But then the advocates for Thor may just move the goalposts accordingly.

Or take the Kalam. Can premise 2 be validated/rejected without science? I logically think not. And yet, countless theists still use the Kalam for a 'god' when the topic is not first resolved by 'science'.

I'm not going to waste my time watching an entire video that is clickbait and discussing obsolete theories. If there's a relevant thing in the video, quote what it says instead of just posting the video and expect me to watch the entire thing.

That's fair otseng. The point being, I sent (2) videos. This one, and another one a while back, with Sean Carroll speaking about an 'eternal universe'. They both admit 'science' does not know yet.' Sean Carroll's video it is not a smug or arrogant conclusion-based-video, or one in which demonstrates denial. It is instead an honest explanation, that science still has a lot left to do on this topic. And this is where you want to hang your hat for 'god'.

Nobody is claiming science is even close to solving all things.

Aces Then you agree there is a chance 'science' may someday "solve" this topic too.

As a matter of fact, it solves very little. Even basic things as gravity scientists have no idea how it works. We don't even know what exactly is light. Sure, we can describe those things, but we don't really know what those things are.

Therefore, "god"?

I'm not "shoehorning" God as an explanation. I'm not even presenting a god of the gaps argument. What I am doing is presenting the laws of physics and logically arguing for a supernatural causation. Do I claim I'm doing "science"? No. Because the tool of science automatically rejects any supernatural explanation (which I argue scientists are already violating this). What I am doing is using logical reasoning and deduction. And the only way to counter my argument is to assume the supernatural does not exist.

What tool(s) and/or instrumentation(s) could/would demonstrate, and not only again infer, the existence of anything 'supernatural'? And have those tools/instruments demonstrated the 'supernatural'?

That's why I'm not claiming I'm making a scientific argument, but a logical argument. It's not like science is the only game in town to arrive at truth. As a matter of fact, as you say, "'Science' is not even close to solving all of the world's problems or unanswered questions." Fundamentally, we have to use logic (which science itself is based on) to arrive at truth.

Then I have to shamelessly plug a topic worthy of discussion. But guess what? 'Science' is necessary on some level:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41274

It just means "science" cannot arrive at all truth (whether it means a naturalistic explanation and especially a supernaturalistic explanation).

Nothing in science is settled. In principle, everything in science should be falsifiable. So, nobody, including me, is saying anything in science is settled. Even our understanding of germs, cells, gravity, and evolution are not settled either.

As I see it, there is (2) categories:

1) The not-yet-"resolved" - (origin of the universe, abiogenesis, etc)
2) Theoretical topics - (germ, cell, evolution, gravity)

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

1a) Theists love to hang out here and assert 'god'.
2a) Theists can ultimately argue that nothing is really 'proven', as highlighted in bold above.

Maybe all roads lead to 'faith'?

How can one tell if one is spinning/deflecting/rationalizing? Bottom line, it should be based on logical reasoning and evidence. If one side fails to provide these, but instead just use fallacious arguments and no evidential support, then they are spinning it.

I hear you, but I would wager you and I may not agree regarding both Dr. Craig <vs> Mr. Carroll. They both are at the forefront of their respective topics of (theology vs science). I'd say Dr, Craig (theology) will stick to his proverbial guns, despite being refuted. And guess what, I already know that he would, because he admitted it in a video. Where-as Mr. Carroll, we have no such findings. This is not to address an appeal to authority, but to instead provide demonstration that your claim backfires. It is more-so that I see "theology" is intellectually dishonest about the inferred 'evidence'. Maybe not you though, we shall see?

I'm not yet convinced of your position that 'scientists', in the know, deny 'god' by ignoring inference(s). But I am, alternatively, convinced that 'theists' will defy their own logic and reasoning to still favor 'god'. Why? "Statements of faith" are a clear testament to this.... This is something 'science' lacks, and I see this as a good thing.

The point being, is that the biggest public 'defender' of your faith is on record to state that he will believe in God basically --> no matter what. "Science" is no stranger to deception either, however. But I have yet to see it about denying 'god'?

I guess the takeaway here is, do you subscribe to a "statement of faith"? If so, then you are knowingly possibly being self-deceptive.

Yes, you've stated this ad nauseum. And as I've explained as well, I've demonstrated it through inference and evidence.

Then I guess we can keep "Santa Claus" on the table for discussion too. See below.

Actually, we do know. The known laws of physics do not apply with singularities.

We've already been all over this Otseng. There is still so much more to discover.

The big hangup I see is the baggage the word "supernatural" has. All I mean is it is not natural. Supernatural conjures up ghosts and goblins, angels and demons, etc. Though the supernatural could contain these things, all I'm claiming is there exists things beyond our natural world or things in our natural world beyond our physical laws.

I think this is a fair point. Then maybe it's better if we instead cite examples, rather than definitions? Would we agree that Santa Claus would be an example of the 'supernatural'? If so, then couldn't someone logically infer Santa before ever demonstrating his actual existence? You see where I'm going here Otseng?

Actually, I've spent considerable time on a global flood and presenting evidence and logical arguments to support it. See Start discussing flood.

I know you have. And I've debated scholarly theists who argue a local flood. You scholars cannot even agree as to whether the flood is local or global.

I'll stop here unless there is anything else you would like me to address.

[otseng]

Does 'I don't know' have a HARD EXCLUDE for 'god'?

You tell me since you're the one with the "I don't know" position.

Doesn't God have the ability to provide everyone with evidence to be convinced, which would then negate some scientist's hard denial anyways?

Why does God need to convince everyone? Does God provide evidence? Yes. Does God need to prove things? No.

Point 1) Is the universe finite or eternal? No theoretical 'conclusion' has been given. Hence, the great debate continues.

Even in your example, science cannot conclude anything. It would be special pleading if even science cannot convince everyone, but God has to.

Point 2) The laws of thermo have already been taken into consideration, regarding the on-going debate (finite vs eternal).

You didn't take it into consideration. You simply rejected my definition on Wikipedia and did not offer one from another source. The only thing you've done is appeal to authority and say since some scientists believe the universe is eternal that they must've considered the laws of thermo, which is highly doubtful since I haven't seen any arguments addressing it.

As already stated, the time to infer something or someone, is after the inferred is demonstrated to at least exist. Can you do that? Otherwise, why add 'god' into the viable list of options?

Have no idea what you mean. How can this ask be also applied to singularities and other universes? How are they demonstrated to exist apart from inference?

See below when I touch on "Santa Claus" in bold. And no, it's not to be sarcastic or patronizing.

It's a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming for the existence of Santa Claus.

Maybe 'science' is not the correct tool to prove or disprove 'god'?

By definition, modern science can do neither.

Case/point, Thor is not in the clouds throwing down lightning bolts. But then the advocates for Thor may just move the goalposts accordingly.

Another straw man. Nobody is arguing for Thor.

Or take the Kalam. Can premise 2 be validated/rejected without science? I logically think not. And yet, countless theists still use the Kalam for a 'god' when the topic is not first resolved by 'science'.

Who says science is the final arbiter on truth? Rather, ultimately what all truth must be based on is logic.

Then you agree there is a chance 'science' may someday "solve" this topic too.

Of course. But we cannot appeal to the future for our current belief. Would skeptics accept this if Christians stated this? "I don't know how to explain the Bible is authoritative, but someday Christians will solve it. No conclusions have been arrived yet, so the debate continues. I-don't-know is a perfectly acceptable option."

What tool(s) and/or instrumentation(s) could/would demonstrate, and not only again infer, the existence of anything 'supernatural'? And have those tools/instruments demonstrated the 'supernatural'?

Per your definition of natural/supernatural, I've already demonstrated the existence of the supernatural. Scientists as well have posited the existence of the supernatural through other universes, other dimensions, and things in our universe that cannot be directly detected.

As I see it, there is (2) categories:

1) The not-yet-"resolved" - (origin of the universe, abiogenesis, etc)
2) Theoretical topics - (germ, cell, evolution, gravity)

Here we see the limits of science. Science can describe things that directly observable, but it is weak with things such as origins.

It is more-so that I see "theology" is intellectually dishonest about the inferred 'evidence'. Maybe not you though, we shall see?

Let's just use the current debate as an example. I've provided evidence and logical arguments for a temporal and created universe. Whereas no evidence and only an appeal to authority has been presented for an eternal universe. Who is being intellectually dishonest?

Statements of faith" are a clear testament to this.... This is something 'science' lacks, and I see this as a good thing.

The fundamental assumption of science is a statement of faith. It assumes the supernatural does not exist. Can you provide anything to back up this assumption? If not, then it's purely a faith statement.

I guess the takeaway here is, do you subscribe to a "statement of faith"? If so, then you are knowingly possibly being self-deceptive.

What statement of faith are you referring to? A Christian doctrinal statement of faith? It is irrelevant to the debate.

Then I guess we can keep "Santa Claus" on the table for discussion too.

Bringing up a straw man would be fallacious and it would also be a red herring discussion to try to avoid debating the actual topic of debate - is the universe created or eternal?

We've already been all over this Otseng. There is still so much more to discover.

And again, what if Christians constantly responded this way when skeptics challenge Christian beliefs?

Then maybe it's better if we instead cite examples, rather than definitions? Would we agree that Santa Claus would be an example of the 'supernatural'? If so, then couldn't someone logically infer Santa before ever demonstrating his actual existence? You see where I'm going here Otseng?

As for examples, I've already given them - singularities, other universes, other dimensions.

Santa Claus would not be a good example because I'm not arguing he exists (unless we're referring to the original Saint Nicholas).

You scholars cannot even agree as to whether the flood is local or global.

Scholars do not agree on practically all positions. So presenting that observation is of no value.

[POI]

I see this conversation going sideways because you are addressing apples, where-as I'm addressing oranges. Allow me to try to pull our two conversations together below. Please remember the title of this thread, why trust the Bible?

Does 'I don't know' have a HARD EXCLUDE for 'god'?

You tell me since you're the one with the "I don't know" position.

I genuinely do not know. But I sincerely doubt the Bible God exists nowadays. But it's still not a "hard exclude" either.

Why does God need to convince everyone? Does God provide evidence? Yes. Does God need to prove things? No.

Point missed here. Seems like the Bible God wants personal relationships with his creation. Does he not?

Even in your example, science cannot conclude anything. It would be special pleading if even science cannot convince everyone, but God has to.

You missed my point here too Otseng. We have 'solved' topics and 'unsolved' topics in science. This sub-topic is addressing an unsolved one. I'm basically the only one engaging here. Likely for two reasons:

1) Very few subscribers, if any at all, have extensive backgrounds in this particular topic, (including me).
2) The field of 'science' itself has not 'resolved' the question of (finite vs eternal).

If I had the ability to 'prove' finite or eternal, I would love to. But, If YOU think you have the AHA 'evidence', get it peer reviewed and change "science". Make this topic theoretical. As it stands, I reckon there are devoted and focused people, much more involved than you and I, working on this stuff day and night, and still do not have an answer. Call it 'faith'

You didn't take it into consideration. You simply rejected my definition on Wikipedia and did not offer one from another source. The only thing you've done is appeal to authority and say since some scientists believe the universe is eternal that they must've considered the laws of thermo, which is highly doubtful since I haven't seen any arguments addressing it.

Point missed again.

First, I would like to even further address this continued 'Wiki' concern, because you continue to bring it up. In the past, I would also sometimes use "Wiki", but then when I would later go back to the same 'Wike' topic I just addressed, I would see the description would completely change. I now just ignore it. There's plenty of other placed to address info. So when you send me a 'Wiki", I'm just going to ignore it.

Second, I'm not appealing to authority here. As I've stated, ad nauseam, I'm pretty dang sure that any/all "Cosmologists", who are worth their weight in salt, know about the laws of thermo. when still inferring to an 'eternal universe'. Just like I already assume scholarly seminary graduates know the Bible.

Have no idea what you mean. How can this ask be also applied to singularities and other universes? How are they demonstrated to exist apart from inference?

Missing my point here...

Has 'god' ever been demonstrated anywhere, or only inferred everywhere? God is said to intervene. "Multiverses" and "singularities" likely don't. God wants to be detected. "Multiverses" and "singularities" likely don't. If you wish to instead argue that God does NOT want a relationship with his creation, and remain 'hidden', like "Multiverses" and "singularities", then I guess we are DONE here. God has succeeded in playing hide-and-go-seek. 'God' is the ultimate master in hiding. But please do not argue FOR the Bible.

It's a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming for the existence of Santa Claus.

You say this because you are missing my point. I will explain below...

By definition, modern science can do neither.

(Taken from my last post) - Or maybe instead, 'science' is necessary, but not the only tool?

Another straw man. Nobody is arguing for Thor.

Point missed... As new discoveries roll on, more assertions go away. The state of the universe has not been 'solved', so you still get to hang your proverbial 'god' hat here.

Who says science is the final arbiter on truth? Rather, ultimately what all truth must be based on is logic.

Again, maybe instead, 'science' is necessary, but not the only tool?

Of course. But we cannot appeal to the future for our current belief. Would skeptics accept this if Christians stated this? "I don't know how to explain the Bible is authoritative, but someday Christians will solve it. No conclusions have been arrived yet, so the debate continues. I-don't-know is a perfectly acceptable option."

But we can appeal to the past, ala the "god of the gaps". Has God been produced anywhere, where 'god(s)' were previously asserted to be? I think not.

Per your definition of natural/supernatural, I've already demonstrated the existence of the supernatural. Scientists as well have posited the existence of the supernatural through other universes, other dimensions, and things in our universe that cannot be directly detected.

I'm going to pivot a bit here Otseng, in an attempt to move this conversation forward. I agree with one thing you stated prior, that the term 'supernatural' carries 'baggage.' Maybe there is no way for you and I <to agree> on what 'supernatural' actually means? Or maybe 'supernatural' needs to be sub-categorized? (i.e.)

1a) Falls outside understanding of (not-yet-'concluded') natural law.
1b) Falls outside understanding of ('concluded') natural law.

In focusing on (1b), can we <both> agree that Santa Claus, Thor, and the Bible-God would adhere to (1b) in one respect or another? I would say so. All three have been 'inferred', but have any of the three ever actually been 'demonstrated'? If so, how or where?

Science can describe things that directly observable, but it is weak with things such as origins.

And this is where the "god of the gaps" comes in. As i stated prior:

1a) (not-yet-'proven') - Theists love to hang out here and assert 'god'.
2a) (theoretical - 'proven') - Theists can ultimately argue that nothing is really 'proven'.

At the end of the day, the theist argues that we all operate under faith. Which is exactly what you are doing. Case/point:

'Science' inferring 'multiverses', without demonstrable evidence, is somehow EQUAL to a theist inferring 'god'. But I explained above why they are not one-in-the-same.

Let's just use the current debate as an example. I've provided evidence and logical arguments for a temporal and created universe. Whereas no evidence and only an appeal to authority has been presented for an eternal universe. Who is being intellectually dishonest?

More straw.

The fundamental assumption of science is a statement of faith. It assumes the supernatural does not exist. Can you provide anything to back up this assumption? If not, then it's purely a faith statement.

Hmm?

Scientists as well have posited the existence of the supernatural

What statement of faith are you referring to? A Christian doctrinal statement of faith? It is irrelevant to the debate.

I do not see it as irrelevant at all. I'm trying to peel back the onion layers. Could there ever actually ever be enough 'evidence' to cause you to infer there exists no Bible God? You say 'yes', (i.e.) 'shroud' and 'eternal universe', but I have my doubts This is why I'm asking you to look at my other thread (viewtopic.php?t=41274). I know you are limited on time. But I feel many of these arguments, though stimulating, may not really matter much in reality?.?.?.? As I also stated prior, I think Romans 1:19-22 has a hand in all of this...

Scholars do not agree on practically all positions. So presenting that observation is of no value.

This is where I continue to bring up theoretical vs not, in the realm of "science". Religion does not have this. In religion, it's a free-for-all.

[otseng]

I see this conversation going sideways because you are addressing apples, where-as I'm addressing oranges. Allow me to try to pull our two conversations together below. Please remember the title of this thread, why trust the Bible?

And what I'm doing is trying to focus on is the current subtopic - is the universe created or eternal? - instead of going off on all these tangents. So, we should be addressing the apples, not the oranges.

Does 'I don't know' have a HARD EXCLUDE for 'god'?

You tell me since you're the one with the "I don't know" position.

I genuinely do not know. But I sincerely doubt the Bible God exists nowadays. But it's still not a "hard exclude" either.

I have looked into all the major arguments for God existing and not existing. And the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the existence of God.

Why does God need to convince everyone? Does God provide evidence? Yes. Does God need to prove things? No.

Point missed here. Seems like the Bible God wants personal relationships with his creation. Does he not?

You keep on saying I'm missing your point. It's because I'm trying to discuss apples and see no relevance to all these assertions you bring up with the current topic. Yes, God wants a personal relationship with us, but it has nothing to do with the argument either the universe is created or eternal.

We have 'solved' topics and 'unsolved' topics in science. This sub-topic is addressing an unsolved one.

The position the universe is eternal is extremely small among cosmologists and the standard position is the universe has a finite age. Really appealing to it as being "unsolved" is a meaningless assertion. Technically, science can't "solve" anything because all scientific hypothesis are falsifiable. But what we have to go by is what we currently know and not just throw up our hands in the air because a position might be falsified in the future.

I'm basically the only one engaging here. Likely for two reasons:

1) Very few subscribers, if any at all, have extensive backgrounds in this particular topic, (including me).
2) The field of 'science' itself has not 'resolved' the question of (finite vs eternal).

Remember you were the one who made the initial claim, so I decided to address that claim. And per the rules on this forum, if someone makes a claim, anyone can ask that person to support that claim:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

It is likely true few have taken classes on thermodynamics and cannot engage in this debate. But if one is going to debate this topic, shouldn't they at least try to understand it instead of just completely dismiss it and ignore it?

As it stands, I reckon there are devoted and focused people, much more involved than you and I, working on this stuff day and night, and still do not have an answer. Call it 'faith'

I find it so ironic that I'm the fundamentalist Christian here who is presenting logical arguments and evidence to support my position, but you as a skeptic is relying on faith.

First, I would like to even further address this continued 'Wiki' concern, because you continue to bring it up. In the past, I would also sometimes use "Wiki", but then when I would later go back to the same 'Wike' topic I just addressed, I would see the description would completely change. I now just ignore it. There's plenty of other placed to address info. So when you send me a 'Wiki", I'm just going to ignore it.

And that's why I've kept asking you to provide definitions of the laws of thermo. If you go through this exercise, then you'll discover there is no disagreement with what wikipedia says compared to any other source.

Second, I'm not appealing to authority here. As I've stated, ad nauseam, I'm pretty dang sure that any/all "Cosmologists", who are worth their weight in salt, know about the laws of thermo. when still inferring to an 'eternal universe'.

By definition you are appealing to authority:

"The appeal to authority fallacy is the logical fallacy of saying a claim is true simply because an authority figure made it."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/appeal-t ... y-fallacy/

"Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered."
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Authority

Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences

https://www.thoughtco.com/logical-falla ... ity-250336

God wants to be detected.

How do you know what God wants? And just because God might not conform to what you think God wants doesn't mean the universe was not created.

When I say the universe was created, I'm not necessarily saying it's any particular god that did it. It can be a deist God or a theist God. It can either be Allah or Yahweh. Or it can even be The Creator Mind.

If you wish to instead argue that God does NOT want a relationship with his creation, and remain 'hidden', like "Multiverses" and "singularities", then I guess we are DONE here. God has succeeded in playing hide-and-go-seek. 'God' is the ultimate master in hiding. But please do not argue FOR the Bible.

Red herring argument.

But we can appeal to the past, ala the "god of the gaps". Has God been produced anywhere, where 'god(s)' were previously asserted to be? I think not.

Likewise I can also bring up all the scientific hypotheses in the past that have been proven they were wrong.

Maybe there is no way for you and I <to agree> on what 'supernatural' actually means?

I'm just going by your definition, unless now you say you reject your own definition.

1a) Falls outside understanding of (not-yet-'concluded') natural law.
1b) Falls outside understanding of ('concluded') natural law.

What exactly is a "natural" law? Also, this would be circular logic since what we're defining is natural and supernatural.

At the end of the day, the theist argues that we all operate under faith. Which is exactly what you are doing.

No, I've been presenting logical arguments and evidence, specifically with the laws of thermo. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I'm arguing by faith.

'Science' inferring 'multiverses', without demonstrable evidence, is somehow EQUAL to a theist inferring 'god'. But I explained above why they are not one-in-the-same.

Never claimed they are "equal". But what they do share is the use of inference. So it would be special pleading if inference is not allowable for God, but allowable for a multiverse.

The fundamental assumption of science is a statement of faith. It assumes the supernatural does not exist. Can you provide anything to back up this assumption? If not, then it's purely a faith statement.

Hmm?

Science assumes naturalism is true:

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps, scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic, which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Can anyone provide logical arguments and evidence naturalism is true? No. I would even go so far as to say there are no inferences naturalism is true.

Could there ever actually ever be enough 'evidence' to cause you to infer there exists no Bible God?

We can take that up in the next discussion and you can go ahead and present your evidence.

This is why I'm asking you to look at my other thread (viewtopic.php?t=41274).

I've taken a peek at it and it's not really relevant to whether God exists or not. At most, it only might explain why people might believe or not believe in God.

[POI]

Is the universe created or eternal?

"Science" does not know yet.

You keep on saying I'm missing your point. It's because I'm trying to discuss apples and see no relevance to all these assertions you bring up with the current topic. Yes, God wants a personal relationship with us, but it has nothing to do with the argument either the universe is created or eternal.

Again, Romans 1:19-22 speaks of everything we see plainly leads to 'creation'. This is why you state that 'science' sees 'god' but denies 'god'. This passage also means that God wants us to see his handy work. Does God want us to see how "he" created everything, or not? This means you are stating 'science' sees it and turns a blind eye to it.

The position the universe is eternal is extremely small among cosmologists and the standard position is the universe has a finite age.

Ah, now 'majority' matters, got it. Well, it's not "resolved" in 'science', like many other topics and categories are (i.e.) theoretical topics. And you postulate or infer that this is because 'science' denies 'god'. And "oooo, that's a bingo."

It is likely true few have taken classes on thermodynamics and cannot engage in this debate. But if one is going to debate this topic, shouldn't they at least try to understand it instead of just completely dismiss it and ignore it?

I understand that 'science' is still working on it. I also understand/infer that 'scientists' have already taken into account the laws of thermo. And we both understand that 'science' is really hard. If all it took to debunk the inference of an "eternal" universe, was to name drop law(s) of thermo, it would not still be an 'unresolved' debate.

By definition you are appealing to authority:

Then this is more straw. Do Cosmologists know about the laws of thermo, yes or no? Assuming you state 'yes', then some cosmologists, who infer/postulate 'eternal', must be completely 'spinning' it up - (some sarcasm here) Case/point: It goes back to what I stated about you verses another theist, regarding the (local verses global) flood. I already infer that you both know all the verses in the Bible. But the fundamental issue here is that you cannot ever ask the author what he meant. You will never really know what the author was conveying. And yet, both of you will certainly still infer what he really meant. Thus, you both can assert your perpetually unverified translation(s) of the Bible without ever actually resolving it. One of you MUST be in denial or spinning, right? Not necessarily. In reality, it may not be "solvable"? You see my point now?

Maybe the "state" of the universe could be one of these topics? Maybe we will never be able to see what is on the other side of the proverbial fence? Or maybe we are still too dumb. Or maybe we have not gathered enough data yet? Or maybe our tools are still inadequate? I do not infer Romans 1:19-22 here.

How do you know what God wants?

For the Bible tells me so.

When I say the universe was created, I'm not necessarily saying it's any particular god that did it. It can be a deist God or a theist God. It can either be Allah or Yahweh. Or it can even be The Creator Mind.

Since it's all inferred, some also infer ''eternal'. But of course, all the ones who infer this option are either stupid or evil, per the Bible and you.

What exactly is a "natural" law? Also, this would be circular logic since what we're defining is natural and supernatural.

Any theoretical scientific law.

Since 'supernatural' carries baggage, do we both (at least) agree "god' is supernatural?

(Third request) Has 'god' ever been demonstrated anywhere, or only inferred everywhere?

Never claimed they are "equal". But what they do share is the use of inference. So it would be special pleading if inference is not allowable for God, but allowable for a multiverse.

We know our universe exists. Our universe has been demonstrated. Do we know of any 'god(s)' which exist? Have any god(s) been demonstrated?

I've taken a peek at it and it's not really relevant to whether God exists or not. At most, it only might explain why people might believe or not believe in God.

My hypothesis is that the aforementioned topic, at least in part, is why you infer 'god'.