Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[HAPMinistries]

Ah, but time cube fixes that problem.

www.timecube.com

LOL!

You are educated evil,

and might have to kill

the evil ONE teaching​

educators before you ​

can learn that 4 corner​

days actually exist -but​

all Cube Truth denied.​

Dumb *** educators fear​

me and hide from debate.​

 

[HAPMinistries]

No. Observationally, the universe doesn't match your definition. It has a beginning

Ok, then where did the universe come from?

 

[Nabobalis]

Unless it runs into something eternal. And of course, if it doesn't run into something eternal, then nothing could have ever possibly started.

Yes, something absolutely has to be eternal, or nothing would exist.

We seem to be making a circle here, so let me say it like this. Infinite Regression must be solved, and you can not solve it with anything finite.

You can not solve infinite regression since it is infinite. You have to explain why something must be eternal otherwise nothing would exist and till you do that you can't claim it.

So the universe would fall under the definition of 'eternal', correct?

[I promise this is not a trick question, so don't worry about it so much.]

The univserse is not eternal, it started at somepoint and still exists.

But before the universe there was nothing and no time, so the universe has existed for all time.

 

[Nabobalis]

Ok, then where did the universe come from?

We don't know. There is no evidence for any other conclusion and our theories break down at that point.

 

[Cabal]

ad hominem

Really, is that all you can do, fallacies?
nice

Nope, seeing as even if all the fallacies you (incorrectly) alleged I committed were true, there were still points in there, so it is clearly not all I can do.

My goodness, it's a wonder you can walk in a straight line.

 

[Cabal]

What part of 1 did you not understand?

Oh come on HAPless, it's not like you could have actually refuted one case or 50, given what little knowledge you display of evolution.

I did call your bluff.
You have been exposed.
Everyone knows you are a fake.

Dunning-Kruger effect rises again! The only person here who isn't utterly aware of what an utter chump you're making of yourself is you.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Ok, then where did the universe come from?

It didn't come from anywhere. Think it through, chiclet.

 

[Cabal]

And thus enters the paradox.

Empirical evidence OF evolution would disprove evolution.

Wow, please NEVER leave the forum, HAPless.

Everytime I think you can't manage to make yourself look even more ridiculous, you manage it.

This has got to be the most pathetic attempt to avoid getting called on a strawman argument I've ever seen.

 

[HAPMinistries]

You can not solve infinite regression since it is infinite. You have to explain why something must be eternal otherwise nothing would exist and till you do that you can't claim it.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Infinite regression is a hole in reality that must be reconciled.

Plainly, ANYTHING that has a beginning, is part of this chain. But this chain can not possibly exist without having a first link. A first link can not possibly be finite.

Do you understand?

The univserse is not eternal, it started at somepoint and still exists.

But before the universe there was nothing and no time, so the universe has existed for all time.

I have no problem with the universe and time coming into existence at the very same time, but what I do have a problem with is the Universe and time having a beginning with no regression to come from. That is a break in logic, and frankly, sanity. You can not say something was born, but not give an answer from what.

 

[Cabal]

I formally take back what I first said in this thread. I was trying to be generous by saying that perhaps science-minded people just aren't tolerant enough of the anti-science crowd, and that it may reflect badly enough on them to not be taken seriously. I take this back because I seem to get the same results whether I'm nice or not. So, if you're a dolt, I'm calling you a dolt.

In this particular case, he had plenty of chances to play along reasonably, but that's clearly not what he's here for.

 

[HAPMinistries]

We don't know. There is no evidence for any other conclusion and our theories break down at that point.

THANK YOU!

Very intelligent answer!

We don't know.

But this much I do know, this regression of existence can not be solved unless something eternal, always existing, exists.

 

[Cabal]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Infinite regression is a hole in reality that must be reconciled.

Plainly, ANYTHING that has a beginning, is part of this chain. But this chain can not possibly exist without having a first link. A first link can not possibly be finite.

Do you understand?

I have no problem with the universe and time coming into existence at the very same time, but what I do have a problem with is the Universe and time having a beginning with no regression to come from. That is a break in logic, and frankly, sanity. You can not say something was born, but not give an answer from what.

And if that argument holds, it refutes God as well as the universe.

 

[Delphiki]

Very good, it is Methodological Naturalism vs Science.

...ad hominem

Really? I even made the important words all bold and big like you guys so with your bible quotes and you STILL didn't get it?

Naturalism is not against science, dolt. (ad homeminium)

 

[HAPMinistries]

And if that argument holds, it refutes God as well as the universe.

Which God?

 

[Cabal]

Which God?

Good point, actually - your argument additionally provides no way to distinguish between the gods that are claimed to exist, but I suspect that was unintentional on your part.

 

[matthewgar]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Infinite regression is a hole in reality that must be reconciled.

Plainly, ANYTHING that has a beginning, is part of this chain. But this chain can not possibly exist without having a first link. A first link can not possibly be finite.

Do you understand?




I have no problem with the universe and time coming into existence at the very same time, but what I do have a problem with is the Universe and time having a beginning with no regression to come from. That is a break in logic, and frankly, sanity. You can not say something was born, but not give an answer from what.

First off this question is falicious due to the way evolution works. There was never something that became a chicken, there is no point if you took the entire line of chickens from a non chicken and said, "This here is the first chicken." you might have a group of the line that you could say is where the chicken line forms, but no there is no answer to the question :>

 

[HAPMinistries]

Naturalism is not against science

The original point:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'


And, yes it is. Methodological Naturalism takes a self defeating approach that is biased towards anything that does not fit into it's box, thus the backlash.

Lets take a general approach to the world.

Every continent man has lived on, they have worshiped some form of spiritual being.

Today, 2010, the majority of the world believes a 'spiritual' world exists. This people have concluded by personal experiences and observations.

NOW, add a scientific methodology that eliminates anything on the grounds of being spiritual, and you exclude what the majority of the world knows exists, thus, the sudden loss of respectability to methodological naturalism approach to science.

And yes, science is a philosophy.

 

[Nabobalis]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Infinite regression is a hole in reality that must be reconciled.

Plainly, ANYTHING that has a beginning, is part of this chain. But this chain can not possibly exist without having a first link. A first link can not possibly be finite.

Do you understand?

I have no problem with the universe and time coming into existence at the very same time, but what I do have a problem with is the Universe and time having a beginning with no regression to come from. That is a break in logic, and frankly, sanity. You can not say something was born, but not give an answer from what.

[FONT=&quot]Both came first. A first link can be finite; an infinite first chain link means it goes on for ever backwards as well, so it isn't the start of that chain.

The logic that something must come from something, isn't logical (to me at least), we know that it does not (Casmir effect which is amazing btw). [/FONT]

 

[HAPMinistries]

but I suspect that was unintentional on your part.

dolt

 

[Cabal]

dolt

Now THAT'S an ad hominem.