The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Gadarene]

Expert testimony should read expert quote mining.

 

[Elioenai26]

So what was the point of the quotes?

Expert testimony should read expert quote mining.

Five of the quotes are supplied as non-Christian (nonpartisan) expert testimony to corroborate the assertion and validity of premise (ii) of the KCA. Three by an agnostic astronomer, one by an agnostic atheistic theoretical physicist, and one by an atheistic British author.

One quote, by Arthur Eddington who was an astrophysicist, philosopher of science and contemporary of Albert Einstein, was supplied to corroborate the validity of the conclusion that the best explanation for the universe is that it was the result of a supernatural Cause.

Four quotes, two by Albert Einstein, one by physicist Sir William Bragg, and one by Dr. George Lundberg, were furnished to give validity to the claim that science and religion are not antagonists, but are both mutually beneficial to one another. In fact, as Sir William Bragg put it so eloquently, with the two combined, one can grasp much more than what one could with either one alone. These men inform us that science as a discipline, has definite limitations, and once these limitation are reached, we should utilize other disciplines to carry on our search for meaning and understanging of reality.



Now with regards to the label that one should affix to this compilation of quotes:

Label it whatever pleases you. I labeled it as expert testimony. Some may label it as quote mining or any other designator. This is perfectly acceptable seeing as how the label or title of the compilation has no affect on the ideas and statements expressed within the compilation itself.

The testimony of these men of science and literature and sociology stands independently of whatever you choose to call the body of testimony.

Call it North Carolina, or Deer Park Water, or Quote Mining, or illegitimate use of quotes taken out of context. Call it what you will. The quotes themselves are concise, intelligible, and meaningful statements that in no way contradict the views, ideas, and other statements of their authors. They are more than pertinent to the topic and are all from people who are knowledgeable in their respective areas of their expertise.

By the way, when one goes mining for gold, and gold is found, he takes the gold and leaves the unwanted mineral behind. The gold is what the miner desires, not the excess mineral. So long as he knows that the gold is gold indeed and that it came from the earth, then the miner has no scruples about cashing in on his reward for his toil.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert Testimony


-“Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow

-“The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural.” - Arthur Eddington, British Astrophysicist and philosopher of science​

-Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything. -Physicist Sir William Bragg​

-"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein​

-Science only provides a car and chauffeur for us. It does not tell us where to drive. The car and the chauffeur will take us into the highlands or into the ditch with equal efficiency. -Dr. George Lundberg, professor of sociology at the University of Washington​

-The scientific method can teach us nothing beyond how facts are related to and conditioned by each other...knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. -Albert Einstein​

-The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. -Stephen Hawking, British Theoretical Physicist and author​

-“Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover…That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-“The scientist’s pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the word of the Bible: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and earth.” -Agnostic Astronomer and author Dr. Robert Jastrow​

-A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. - Anthony Kenny, British author and atheist​

 

[Gadarene]

As you said in a recent thread about Bible quotes, context.

In the mean time, do stop spamming the same quote mines everywhere.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is an old southern adage that goes something like this:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

That doesn't really answer the question though. You presented the argument earlier. Several counter-points were raised. Many of these points still stand just as relevant. So why repeat the argument? You're just going to receive the same counter-points as before.

 

[Gracchus]

There is an old southern adage that goes something like this:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In the army on the other hand, I learned that if it wasn't broke, you should perform your regular maintenance and upgrade as required. Don't wait for it to break. It may be too late.

 

[Davian]

...
You have yet to address all of the points raised (or even acknowledge that they have been raised) regarding the weaknesses of the argument. Why is that?

I will not address questions that I have already addressed. I shall simply refer you to the previous forty plus pages of material.

I asked, why do you not address the questions you have not addressed?

You missed this part again, Elioenai26.

I asked, why do you not address the questions you have not addressed?

Do you concede that those questions are valid, and that your premises are faulty?

 

[Elioenai26]

That doesn't really answer the question though. You presented the argument earlier. Several counter-points were raised. Many of these points still stand just as relevant. So why repeat the argument? You're just going to receive the same counter-points as before.

Where have I "repeated" the argument?

If by repeating the argument, you mean giving a summary of it, then I have done so to show that the main points of the KCA have been shown to be more plausibly true than their negation.

Why?


No one thus far has offered any good reason or argument that incontrovertibly refutes either of the premises or the conclusion. All objections have been answered and no new ones have been raised.

Thus, until someone raises a new objection, the KCA stands affirmed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where have I "repeated" the argument?

If by repeating the argument, you mean giving a summary of it, then I have done so to show that the main points of the KCA have been shown to be more plausibly true than their negation.

Why?


No one thus far has offered any good reason or argument that incontrovertibly refutes either of the premises or the conclusion. All objections have been answered and no new ones have been raised.

Thus, until someone raises a new objection, the KCA stands affirmed.

Shall we provide a summary of the counter-points given that none of them have been refuted either?

 

[Elioenai26]

Shall we provide a summary of the counter-points given that none of them have been refuted either?

Do what you desire.

I shall be waiting.

 

[Davian]

Where have I "repeated" the argument?

If by repeating the argument, you mean giving a summary of it, then I have done so to show that the main points of the KCA have been shown to be more plausibly true than their negation.

Why?


No one thus far has offered any good reason or argument that incontrovertibly refutes either of the premises or the conclusion. All objections have been answered and no new ones have been raised.

Thus, until someone raises a new objection, the KCA stands affirmed.

So, your points only have to be plausible, but the objections must be incontrovertible? Moving goalposts much?

No, until you have adequately addressed the objections put forth, the KCA does not 'stand affirmed'.

 

[Davian]

Elioenai26, am I to assume that you will not be addressing my questions?


This is not true. Stanford University has a detailed dismantling of the cosmological argument that dates back to 2004.

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You missed this part again, Elioenai26.

I asked, why do you not address the questions you have not addressed?

Do you concede that those questions are valid, and that your premises are faulty?

Where have I "repeated" the argument?

If by repeating the argument, you mean giving a summary of it, then I have done so to show that the main points of the KCA have been shown to be more plausibly true than their negation.

Why?


No one thus far has offered any good reason or argument that incontrovertibly refutes either of the premises or the conclusion. All objections have been answered and no new ones have been raised.

Thus, until someone raises a new objection, the KCA stands affirmed.

Shall we provide a summary of the counter-points given that none of them have been refuted either?

Do what you desire.

I shall be waiting.

Funny, I read that as "I will be evading".

So you are waiting for what was posted on the previous page?

I'll post it again, leaving out my responses to your prosthelytizing:

So what is the point of this assertion? Are you saying that truth does not exist, and or that truth is not knowable?

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

You ask two questions here. I shall deal with them separately.

1. Your first question is vague; namely in your usage of the phrase: "rules of space-time". I will need you to elaborate on these "rules" that you are speaking of before I can give you a satisfactory answer.

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

2. The charge of working backwards from God to the first premise is false for the simple reason that the syllogism:

i. everything that begins to exist, has a cause for it's existence
ii. the universe began to exist
iii. therefore the universe has a cause

makes no mention of the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, it makes no mention of any type of deity whatsoever! All this argument tells us is that the universe must have a cause as is evidenced in the conlusion (iii.)

Now, the meat and potatos of the arguement, and where I ended the apologia was with the obvious question: "what could have caused the universe to be?" We can logically infer from the effect (the universe to include space, time, matter) some of the necessary attributes or "properties" of what the Cause would have to have.

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

As for those attributes:

1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

- define what 'outside' of the universe means
- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.
- detail scientifically how much power was required for initiating the instantiation of the cosmos

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed? Show why this required a 'deity'.

4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

You will have to be much more specific here. Which accounts in Genesis are you referring to? If you are referring to the creation accounts, which parts of the creation accounts?

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not? (do you accept gravitational theory, evolutionary theory, germ theory, for example?)

And, as you have conceded, you have not addressed all of the critiques of the argument from here:

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Elioenai26]

So, your points only have to be plausible, but the objections must be incontrovertible? Moving goalposts much?

In order for the KCA to be refuted, you must supply an argument to prove that your position against it is so conclusive that there can be no other truth as to the matter; evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence (evidence for the KCA) . This is one usage of the word incontrovertible courtesy of Wikipedia.

In layman's terms, all I ask is that if you disagree with the argument, show how it's negation is more plausibly true than the argument. If the KCA is so riddled with problems, this should be easy for you and your other fellows to do.

No, I take the scientific approach. You are the one claiming that these truths are knowable. Prove it. (Since you are the one claiming that these truths can be known, you should be able to prove it).

I am glad you take the scientific approach. I do as well. I do claim the proposition: "If God exists, we can know He exists", as true and have provided one argument for the existence of God.

Your cosmological argument, as you have presented it below. How can you prove that it applies before and at the instantiation of the cosmos?

This question is vague for several reasons:

1. The KCA is an argument comprised of two premises with a conclusion. Now your question is how can the argument apply before and at the instantiation of the cosmos? This is quite unintelligible and misconstrues the nature of a syllogistic argument. All the argument tells us is that the universe has a Cause. That is all it tells us Davian. And no scientists will seriously maintain otherwise without facing ridicule from his own fellow scientists.

Thus, the argument cannot apply anything before and at the instantiation of the cosmos, it has no causal powers, for it is just an argument!

If you could just rephrase the question more clearly, I shall be able to answer it for you.

Not the argument - *you*. You are working backwards through this whole thing from the conclusion, deity that you already believe to exist. This is not science (obviously, which is why it is called apologetics, lol).

Courtesy of my post #477 which I wrote in response to the same question you have asked yet again.

......

It seems to me that you are confusing question begging with a deductive modus ponens syllogism. This syllogism is a logical basic form of a deductive argument that when written looks like the following:

Another example would be the following:

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

It is:

p implies q...
p
Therefore...q

Davian this is very basic philosophy we are dealing with here and any objection to it is a pseudo-intellectual objection based on a lack of understanding of even the most basic syllogistic models.

You see, all you have done in your objection is describe what a deductive argument is! A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion is implicit in the premises waiting to be derived by the logical rules of inference.

Now, an example of question begging would be me positing the following argument:

1. Either God exists, or the moon is made of bleu cheese
2. The moon is not made of bleu cheese
3. Therefore God exists

You see in the above that the argument's conclusion follows logically from the premises, but we know this is not a good argument because the arguer is begging the question of God's existence by positing (1) without any independent corroborating evidence. Therefore the argument fails.

The proponent of the KCA gives multiple attestation and evidence corroborating the veracity of it's two premises and these evidences and supports are completely independent of one's beliefs!

As for those attributes:

- sounds like 'non-existant', unless you can describe this thing by what it is, rather than by what it isn't. You have not done so. Self-Existent? Nice try. Is not the universe self-existent?

It seems here that you are equating adjectives such as immaterial, non-spatial, timeless, etc. etc. to mean that they necessarily and are only applicable to something "non-existant". This is clearly fallacious for several reasons:

1. The argument concludes to a Cause of the universe which in itself is a positive existential affirmation! There is a Cause of the universe.

2. To say that the universe was caused by a non-existant entity or "no-thing" is to say that the universe has "no cause" which is the exact opposite of what the argument argues for!

3. The argument's conclusion also implies the attribution of incredible causal power to the Causal entity of the universe which brought the universe into being without any material cause! These all are positive attributes! It is wholly different from "non-existance" or "nothing" which has no reality, no properties and no causal powers.

4. The attribution of negative predicates is enormously informative and mataphyscially significant. From it's timelessness and immateriality, we can deduce from these it's personhood, which is a positive property which is of great significance and theological importance and wholly unlike "no-thing."

- define what 'outside' of the universe means

Outside of the universe (all material, all space, and all time) means transcendant over the universe i.e immaterial, non-spatial, and timeless.

- if it it outside, how does it get inside?

The argument never argues that the Cause has gotten inside of the universe, so if you raise this as an objection, it is a strawman fallacy. If raised as a question from curiosity, it is in no way logically incoherent to say that God can act within the universe by however means He sees fit since He was able to create it in the first place. Maintaining that He could not is like maintaining that a carpenter could not enter into a house after having built it.

- why must it be? Is there any indication that the cosmos is infinite?

There is no commmonly accepted credible evidence from science or philosophy that the universe is infinite.

- what is the apparent total of energy in the universe? What if it is zero?
- it is possible for there to be nothing?

These are questions and not really objections and therefore I will simply say that they are not pertinent to the KCA.

- provide details on what choices were available to this supposed deity. Perhaps there were no, or few choices. How much intelligence was needed?

Once again, these are not really objections but curious questions which do not have any bearing on the first two premises. Therefore they are not relevant in the inference to the conclusion.

Show why this required a 'deity'

- choice implies change, and time. How does a timeless 'entity' make a choice?

Such a transcnedant cause must be personal for two reasons:

1. The only entities we know of that can be timeless and immaterial are either minds or abstract objects like numbers.

2. Abstract objects like numbers do not stand in causal relations. For example, the number 7 cannot "create" or "choose" to create anything!

3. The transcendant Cause therefore must be an unembodied mind.

4. Only a free agent can account for the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the universe were an impersonal mechanically operating entity, then the cause could never exist without it's effect. For if the sufficient condition of the effect is given, then the effect must be given as well. The only way for the Cause to be timeless but for its effect to begin in time is for the Cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without an antecedent determining conditions.

And I think this may have answered the first question you asked earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xoULSZgES0

- it is possible for there to be nothing?

This is more or less another question from curiosity and has no bearing on the KCA.

All of it. Is it literal or not? Did the writers of the bible get the details right or not? (do you accept gravitational theory, evolutionary theory, germ theory, for example?)

Since the Bible is not one book but many books, letters, and other forms of literature compiled together, one cannot say that all of it is "literal" in any true sense of the word.

Many passages in the bible are to be taken allegorically and or symbolically and not literally. So you will have to furnish the passages which you have questions about.

And, as you have conceded, you have not addressed all of the critiques of the argument from here:

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If you would like to highlight anything from the above link and have me address it, then I will be glad to if I have not already addressed it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The proponent of the KCA gives multiple attestation and evidence corroborating the veracity of it's two premises and these evidences and supports are completely independent of one's beliefs!

Neither of the two premises have been shown to be true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do what you desire.

I shall be waiting.

Well, I'm waiting too... do you intend to address the counter-points or do you just want to repeat the argument again and pretend that it is triumphant?

 

[Elioenai26]

Neither of the two premises have been shown to be true.

Okaaayy......

Care to substantiate that blatantly false statement?

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, I'm waiting too... do you intend to address the counter-points or do you just want to repeat the argument again and pretend that it is triumphant?

I shall refer you to my responses to Davian in the preceding post.

In the response, I covered many questions that you and everyone else have asked.

If in the response to Davian, you have a question that is not answered there, then ask it.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Okaaayy......

Care to substantiate that blatantly false statement?

Sure.

There hasn't been any evidence that either of the premises are true.

See? Not blatantly false at all...

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure.

There hasn't been any evidence that either of the premises are true.

See? Not blatantly false at all...

Oh, I see....

Because you say so, that makes it true.

That can work both ways you know.

I can say you are wrong.

See??? Not hard at all!

You are also going to be ignored from here on out until you can start posting serious, relevant posts.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

In order for the KCA to be refuted, you must supply an argument to prove that your position against it is so conclusive that there can be no other truth as to the matter; evidence so strong it overpowers contrary evidence (evidence for the KCA) . This is one usage of the word incontrovertible courtesy of Wikipedia.

In layman's terms, all I ask is that if you disagree with the argument, show how it's negation is more plausibly true than the argument. If the KCA is so riddled with problems, this should be easy for you and your other fellows to do.

We've already shown you the problems with the argument. You've hand-waved the problems and repeated the argument.

1. The KCA is an argument comprised of two premises with a conclusion. Now your question is how can the argument apply before and at the instantiation of the cosmos? This is quite unintelligible and misconstrues the nature of a syllogistic argument. All the argument tells us is that the universe has a Cause. That is all it tells us Davian. And no scientists will seriously maintain otherwise without facing ridicule from his own fellow scientists.

But that isn't all you have argued for. You have argued that, in addition the the universe having a cause, that the cause possesses certain unique properties that are not shared with any other known use of the word "cause".

It seems here that you are equating adjectives such as immaterial, non-spatial, timeless, etc. etc. to mean that they necessarily and are only applicable to something "non-existant". This is clearly fallacious for several reasons:

1. The argument concludes to a Cause of the universe which in itself is a positive existential affirmation! There is a Cause of the universe.

2. To say that the universe was caused by a non-existant entity or "no-thing" is to say that the universe has "no cause" which is the exact opposite of what the argument argues for!

And yet those are exactly the properties that you ascribe to your "cause" - the properties that would define it as no-thing. Which leaves you in the bizarre position of arguing that no-thing is really something and that no-thing really is the cause of everything.

3. The argument's conclusion also implies the attribution of incredible causal power to the Causal entity of the universe which brought the universe into being without any material cause! These all are positive attributes! It is wholly different from "non-existance" or "nothing" which has no reality, no properties and no causal powers.

I repeat what I said earlier: You are leveraging the meaning of the word "cause", but ignoring the context in which it finds meaning.

4. The attribution of negative predicates is enormously informative and mataphyscially significant. From it's timelessness and immateriality, we can deduce from these it's personhood, which is a positive property which is of great significance and theological importance and wholly unlike "no-thing."

How do you deduce personhood from timelessness and immateriality?

The argument never argues that the Cause has gotten inside of the universe, so if you raise this as an objection, it is a strawman fallacy. If raised as a question from curiosity, it is in no way logically incoherent to say that God can act within the universe by however means He sees fit since He was able to create it in the first place. Maintaining that He could not is like maintaining that a carpenter could not enter into a house after having built it.

Of course the argument never argues that the supernatural cause has gotten inside of the natural universe. The theist must never concede that point or else his thesis becomes a testable hypothesis. The theist must not allow this to happen; he must keep his deity "outside" the universe so that his deity remains unfalsifiable.

Such a transcnedant cause must be personal for two reasons:

1. The only entities we know of that can be timeless and immaterial are either minds or abstract objects like numbers.

Minds are not immaterial.

3. The transcendant Cause therefore must be an unembodied mind.

No evidence that an "unembodied mind" is even possible.