otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
Yes, I understand the basics of thermodynamics. No, I'm not a theoretical physicist. But we can debate anything here on this forum as long as we present evidence and logical arguments.
Okay, then understanding the
mere basics of a given theory, while some of 'science' still considers/infers/postulates 'eternal' is either conspiratorial and/or in direct denial to their own reality? Yes or no? Maybe instead do a deeper dive into the laws of thermo to keep up.
Here is what you stated:
The issue is more "I don't want to know" rather than "I don't know". People reject any idea that something might confirm the Bible, so they'd rather plead ignorance rather than confirm the Bible.
Alternatively, 'I don't know' is an intellectually honest answer, for many reasons, and does not posit "
I don't want to acknowledge what I really infer." Your position is fallacious, (i.e.) god of the gaps -
refers to the argument that gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence for God's existence and direct intervention.
************************************
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
Who's claiming any victory? I've only simply gave my closing argument for the jury to make the decision.
You excused follow-up, via post 3830, and let post 3821 stand without later removing/editing it as the actually summary argument. Topics were still unresolved. When people go to the summary, they may opt not to search down to see what else was said.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
Very few of us are professionals in the fields we are debating on in this forum. What gives skeptics the right to challenge Christianity when they aren't theological scholars? What right do skeptics have to defend evolution when they are not biology professors? How can posters argue about philosophy when they have no philosophy degree? Ultimately, their title shouldn't bar anyone from debating here. As long as they present sound arguments with evidence, it's allowable regardless of their current profession.
Noted.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
It's a false accusation. Where I have I ever claimed victory? Please cite the post.
Avoidance to post 3830... It was hand-waved and/or went unchallenged. From then on, in all honesty, I lost some initiative to performing any further real deep dive(s) and/or getting into the weeds for topics in this thread there-after. I feel it's a futile endeavor in our exchanges to deep-dive topics for which I am not extremely well-versed within. Why? the 'slavery' topic attests to this.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
It's not that hard of a topic and can easily be researched. The issue is if you make any claim on this forum, it can be challenged for that poster to back up that claim.
Solving some of the biggest unanswered questions, (like "universal origins", "origins to life", etc) is/are not going to be 'resolved' simply by finding a few preferred "Google" links to fit ones own a priori or a posterori position(s). But it still takes no more than common sense to infer these topics are
still not 'resolved' to at least the "theoretical" level. And this is where you wish to hang your hat for 'god'. This is where you wish to infer 'science' adheres to Romans 1:19-22, per the quote above. When alternatively, I've given logical reasons to the alternative.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
No, I don't accept that definition. Why should it only be a willful conscious or agency? All I mean supernatural to mean is something that is not natural.
Then I see this topic as irrelevant. If all 'supernatural' could be is 'multiverse(s)', but not also be something 'mindful/willful/conscious', which intervenes, then you are still no closer to 'god' at all. All 'supernatural' fundamentally then means is 'other laws' working outside our 'known' laws. Case/point, the universal law(s) within some stated 'parallel universe' may work differently that this universe's laws. Okay, but if that other 'universe' never tries to willfully or mindfully intervene with this one, who cares? All 'supernatural' means is anything which operates outside our universe but has no willful intent to communicate with humans. 'Supernatural' becomes a superfluous term.
The goal is to tie something, not only broadly "supernatural", but also
necessarily willful, and also with intent, to exchange with humans. This thread was created to present logical reasoning to infer willful exchange with humans. (i.e.) Why trust the Bible? The Bible asserts that a supernatural willful agency intervenes and communicates with humans. Establishing that we have laws, which do not align with 'science', gets us no closer to this claim at all. It's a waste of time.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
First off, it has nothing to do with the debate on if the universe is created or eternal. And so I see this as a red herring to avoid the actual debate.
The question does directly relate. The time to infer existence of something is after it has first been demonstrated. I asked for one actual example of any god(s). Can you do that? NO! Alternatively, we can give one example of a "universe", which is the one we are in. If any 'god(s)', at all, can be identified anywhere, then, and only then, is it logical to infer the possibility, or to place 'god' on the (set-of-options) list. Prior to this, it's nothing but a faith-claim alone. Just like I could infer or postulate 'universe-creating-pixies', also based upon 'faith', or a 'gaps' argument alone. In essence, the time to infer a 'god' is after demonstration, or, sighting actual identification. Can you do that? No!
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
Secondly, you haven't defined what you mean by "demonstrating".
See above.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am If you mean provide direct physical evidence, of course I can't do that.
So, you concede the Bible does not count either? I guess we are done here.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
If you reject an inference from being used, then you should also reject many things in science, including singularities, multiverse, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter, etc.
Fine, I reject all inferences to (singularities, spacetime, inflation, dark energy, dark matter) until they can first be demonstrated, which means I must reject 'god(s)' too. Now I'm logically consistent
I do not accept any inference which cannot first be demonstrated. My life has changed nada!
If you wish to continue inferring 'god', while straight up telling me you cannot demonstrate him, then it is you who are still committing special pleading.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
Science can infer a multiverse because our universe has been demonstrated? No, just because we live in one universe it does not mean there are a multiplicity of other universes. Per your logic, you'll need to demonstrate the other universes, not our universe. If you cannot do this, then it's special pleading that I must demonstrate God's existence.
I disagree. I asked for the demonstration of any god(s). The 'scientific' claim is that other 'universes' exist outside our universe. We do not have evidence for 'universe-creating-pixies', or any other asserted mindful agency, like 'god(s).' These inferred other 'universe(s), may abide by differing laws. We know of at least one universe to exist, ours. Do we know of any god(s) anywhere, at all, with any attributes at all to match? If not, then it should not be inferred until first demonstrated.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
To reiterate, modern science can say nothing about whether God exists or not. We can only use logical reasoning instead to support our positions on God.
And to reiterate, scientific tools are ever-advancing, but also may never be adequate. We may also not ever have the ability to demonstrate what is outside this universe, nothing outside our universe, (if anything at all), has been
demonstrated to come tell us. This includes the Bible.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 amIrrelevant. We can analyze the claim because if there was a global flood, we should see physical evidence of that on earth. We don't need to ask God about it.
It is relevant. My point is that neither of you can prove the intent of the author. The author is dead. It will be forever unknown. Just like maybe 'science' can never prove certain position(s). Maybe they too are unknowable? i.e. as already stated above -- (lack of tools, lack in knowledge, and/or no communication from outside our universe).
And this is another reason why I care not to do a deep dive and try to explore the position as to why 'science' infers 'eternal'. "Science" does not agree to an asserted 'global flood'. I see no 'conspiracy' here because even IF there happened to be some type of local or global flood, this would have absolutely nothing to do with Bible veracity. We already know the Bible was right about "some" physical stuff. Heck, I even think a physical Jesus existed. All it could mean is that the ancients associated a flood with 'willful intention'.
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 8:10 am
I'll let readers decide who is the one using fallacious reasoning.
Well, it's you. You apply the
god of the gaps at almost every turn.
********************************************
Unvetted points, from post 4254:
- Even IF we were to discover the universe
was 'created', does 'creation' demonstrate "willful agency"
> "natural processes"?
- Science is really really really hard. I posted a link, showing a summation of a chapter regarding 'quantum fluccuations'. Which infers 'creation out of nothing'. I guess we discovered 'god'.
But of course, they are "supernatural." But even IF they are, prove mindfulness. (
https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~colema ... sponse.pdf)
- I did a deep dive, and provided a video, which directly pushes back on your assertion about the "laws of thermo". See the bottom video, at (~minutes-18) for WLC's assertion, and then pick back up again at (~minute-34) for Carroll's rebuttal.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:
"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."