Fine tuning, a new approach

[quatona]

Now the evidence is that there is no natural cause that can explain it,

Correction: ...there is no cause that can explain it.

so either it is completely out of the norm for what we have encountered for natural occurring phenomena

Actually, it´s out of the norm for what have encountered at all, obviously.

and doesn't need a cause

Which isn´t problem at all - because our concept "causality" is based on observations within the universe.

or it is supernaturally caused.

Sure everyone can invoke magic at any point they would like there to be magic.

I find that a very powerful, intelligent supreme being who claims that the universe began and came from nothing in which he created other intelligent beings with the ability to comprehend it is a better explanation than a naturalistic one that goes against all scientific models determined and confirmed throughout time.

Neither of them would be explanations.
The first merely claims to be an explanation (while it actually is just an assertion with no basis at all), and the latter hasn´t even been presented (due to the obvious fact that our "naturalistic" models can´t apply here).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correction: ...there is no cause that can explain it.

What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Actually, it´s out of the norm for what have encountered at all, obviously.

True.

Which isn´t problem at all - because our concept "causality" is based on observations within the universe.

I take this to mean that you have no problem believing our universe just popped into existence for no reason, with no cause and just happens to be fine tuned for intelligent life? And you say I believe in magic?

Sure everyone can invoke magic at any point they would like there to be magic.

Which is what you are doing but in your case there isn't even a magician so the magic just pops up a universe.

Neither of them would be explanations.
The first merely claims to be an explanation (while it actually is just an assertion with no basis at all), and the latter hasn´t even been presented (due to the obvious fact that our "naturalistic" models can´t apply here).

You don't think that multiverse/Quantum events are not explanatory?

 

[quatona]

What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Feel free to give a cause that explains it.

I take this to mean that you have no problem believing our universe just popped into existence for no reason, with no cause and just happens to be fine tuned for intelligent life?

I didn´t say anything to that effect.
I have no problem admitting that when the limits of our empirical and conceptual foundations are reached there is no point in demanding an explanation that is based in our experience and concepts.
The latest point when an honest "I don´t know" is due.

And you say I believe in magic?

Yes. You are introducing the word "supernatural" causation - as if it had any explanatory power. Our concept of causality hasn´t been acquired by observing "supernatural causes"
.

Which is what you are doing but in your case there isn't even a magician so the magic just pops up a universe.

You must confuse me with someone else. i didn´t make any claim to that effect.
But I do understand that when you can´t defend your own argument, you prefer to erect strawmen.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Feel free to give a cause that explains it.

I asked what would prohibit a supernatural cause?

I didn´t say anything to that effect.
I have no problem admitting that when the limits of our empirical and conceptual foundations are reached there is no point in demanding an explanation that is based in our experience and concepts.
The latest point when an honest "I don´t know" is due.

Ok, you don't know. That of course means that you don't know if a natural or supernatural cause is behind the origin of the universe...correct?

Yes. You are introducing the word "supernatural" causation - as if it had any explanatory power. Our concept of causality hasn´t been acquired by observing "supernatural causes"

The word supernatural came long before modern science. The fact that in theism a universe with a beginning from nothing was predicted long before science discovered it.
.

You must confuse me with someone else. i didn´t make any claim to that effect.
But I do understand that when you can´t defend your own argument, you prefer to erect strawmen.

Where do you think my argument is flawed?

 

[quatona]

I asked what would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Your question was unrelated to the statement you made it in response to.

Ok, you don't know. That of course means that you don't know if a natural or supernatural cause is behind the origin of the universe...correct?

No. If you want to find out what my statements mean,
1. read them attentively, and
2. don´t add or substract anything from them.
Thanks.

The word supernatural came long before modern science.

If that were of any relevance I would ask for a citation - but it isn´t of any relevance.

The fact that in theism a universe with a beginning from nothing was predicted long before science discovered it.

No, it wasn´t. In Abrahamic mono-theism there´s a God who created the universe.

Where do you think my argument is flawed?

Yes, I misspoke: I don´t even see an argument.
My point was a different one, though: You were erecting strawmen in order to avoid defending your assertions that don´t even contain anything that deserves to be called an "argument".
You invoke the "supernatural". That´s ok - each to their own. Just don´t pretend that scientific findings play any part in that belief of yours. Invoking the "supernatural" means you have left the scientific field, and any rational discussion based on paradigms of science (such as "causation") has become obsolete.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your question was unrelated to the statement you made it in response to.

Sorry, that doesn't seem to make sense? Here is the context:
You said: Correction: ...there is no cause that can explain it.

I said: What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Which you haven't answered.

No. If you want to find out what my statements mean,
1. read them attentively, and
2. don´t add or substract anything from them.
Thanks.

I am always open to clarification.

If that were of any relevance I would ask for a citation - but it isn´t of any relevance.

OK.

No, it wasn´t. In Abrahamic mono-theism there´s a God who created the universe.

Right. Which He began from nothing.

Yes, I misspoke: I don´t even see an argument.
My point was a different one, though: You were erecting strawmen in order to avoid defending your assertions that don´t even contain anything that deserves to be called an "argument".
You invoke the "supernatural". That´s ok - each to their own. Just don´t pretend that scientific findings play any part in that belief of yours. Invoking the "supernatural" means you have left the scientific field, and any rational discussion based on paradigms of science (such as "causation") has become obsolete.

Scientific findings do play a part in confirmation of my position.

 

[quatona]

Sorry, that doesn't seem to make sense? Here is the context:
You said: Correction: ...there is no cause that can explain it.

I said: What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Which you haven't answered.

I said "there´s no cause that can explain it."
(emphasis added for clarification).

If we include assertions to the "supernatural" into the category of valid "explanations", everything can be asserted and declared an "explanation". That´s a procedere I am not interested in - at least not when the person opposite argues from science.
Science looks for actual explanations - within a certain frame of reference which doesn´t include "the supernatural".
Thus, if we want to talk science, we are taking it as far as possible - without invoking "the supernatural" or other such non-scientific obscurities.

I am always open to clarification.

To be honest, it´s too much work for me to clarify each and everything you misrepresent - you are just too quick doing it, in almost each single post. It´s not about simple misunderstandings, you know. It´s about making stuff up out of thin air. You can do the basic "clarification" work yourself. Hint: If you find yourself asking "So you are saying [followed by something I clearly hadn ´t said]?" you can be sure you are on the wrong track.

Right. Which He began from nothing.

Unless God is "nothing", things don´t add up there.

Scientific findings do play a part in confirmation of my position.

Yes, that´s the way it has always been: When no explanation was available, people felt confirmed in whatever "supernatural" beliefs. As I said, you are free and welcome to hold supernatural beliefs to your heart´s desire.
You are not free and welcome to misrepresent or cherry-pick from science, though. Science is not the bible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said "there´s no cause that can explain it."
(emphasis added for clarification).

What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

If we include assertions to the "supernatural" into the category of valid "explanations", everything can be asserted and declared an "explanation".

Why?

That´s a procedere I am not interested in - at least not when the person opposite argues from science.
Science looks for actual explanations - within a certain frame of reference which doesn´t include "the supernatural".
Thus, if we want to talk science, we are taking it as far as possible - without invoking "the supernatural" or other such non-scientific obscurities.

Science looks for explanations that best explain the evidence. Yes, it limits itself to the natural world. That doesn't mean that is all there is.

To be honest, it´s too much work for me to clarify each and everything you misrepresent - you are just too quick doing it, in almost each single post. It´s not about simple misunderstandings, you know. It´s about making stuff up out of thin air. You can do the basic "clarification" work yourself. Hint: If you find yourself asking "So you are saying [followed by something I clearly hadn ´t said]?" you can be sure you are on the wrong track.

Ok.

Unless God is "nothing", things don´t add up there.

God created the universe from nothing is the claim.

Yes, that´s the way it has always been: When no explanation was available, people felt confirmed in whatever "supernatural" beliefs. As I said, you are free and welcome to hold supernatural beliefs to your heart´s desire.
You are not free and welcome to misrepresent or cherry-pick from science, though. Science is not the bible.

That is true. That doesn't make all such claims or confirmations equal. Science discovers and the evidence doesn't limit itself to the naturalistic worldview.

 

[Freodin]

What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

Why?

Is that really so difficult to understand?

A "supernatural cause" is the equivalent of answering your second question with "Because!".
Instead of trying to explain something, instead of trying to reach an understanding of causes, you simply postulate something that is defined as "correct."

I don't know if there is anything to "prohibit" a supernatural cause... but I do know: as soon as we accept a supernatural cause, we have discarded any means of understanding anything.

 

[bhsmte]

Is that really so difficult to understand?

A "supernatural cause" is the equivalent of answering your second question with "Because!".
Instead of trying to explain something, instead of trying to reach an understanding of causes, you simply postulate something that is defined as "correct."

I don't know if there is anything to "prohibit" a supernatural cause... but I do know: as soon as we accept a supernatural cause, we have discarded any means of understanding anything.

Some have to invoke a supernatural cause, for obvious reasons.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that really so difficult to understand?

A "supernatural cause" is the equivalent of answering your second question with "Because!".
Instead of trying to explain something, instead of trying to reach an understanding of causes, you simply postulate something that is defined as "correct."

I don't know if there is anything to "prohibit" a supernatural cause... but I do know: as soon as we accept a supernatural cause, we have discarded any means of understanding anything.

Why had you discarded anything? If the Bible for instance was taken seriously about a universe with a beginning science could have taken that and explored how that might have happened long before now. If the Bible was taken scientifically seriously they would have know that it was expanding. If taken seriously, they might have come up with better models taking a model where there was no space, matter, energy or time a long time ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Some have to invoke a supernatural cause, for obvious reasons.

You know what might be a great thing for you to do with your life? Go and get yourself a REAL degree in Psychology.

 

[Freodin]

Why had you discarded anything? If the Bible for instance was taken seriously about a universe with a beginning science could have taken that and explored how that might have happened long before now. If the Bible was taken scientifically seriously they would have know that it was expanding. If taken seriously, they might have come up with better models taking a model where there was no space, matter, energy or time a long time ago.

Hm, no. The problem with the Biblical approach is that it is 100% based on hindsight.
When you read the creation story in the Bible, you don't see any hints about a "universe", about "expansion", about a state of "no space, matter energy or time".
What you see is a planet that wasn't there, was "spoken" about, was there and poof... animals and trees and sunshine.
There is nothing there that would lead to scientific curiosity. There is nothing there that would lead to any hypothesis that could be tested.
Only in hindsight can you try to fit the few pieces of information that you can get from the Bible together with a scientific worldview. And in hindsight, it always works, because the "supernatural" explanation requires it to work.

 

[bhsmte]

Hm, no. The problem with the Biblical approach is that it is 100% based on hindsight.
When you read the creation story in the Bible, you don't see any hints about a "universe", about "expansion", about a state of "no space, matter energy or time".
What you see is a planet that wasn't there, was "spoken" about, was there and poof... animals and trees and sunshine.
There is nothing there that would lead to scientific curiosity. There is nothing there that would lead to any hypothesis that could be tested.
Only in hindsight can you try to fit the few pieces of information that you can get from the Bible together with a scientific worldview. And in hindsight, it always works, because the "supernatural" explanation requires it to work.

Agree.

Lot's of; square peg in a round hole going on.

 

[joshua 1 9]

The problem with the Biblical approach is that it is 100% based on hindsight.

They oldest medical book from the time of Amenemhat III (1840-1792 B.C.). Considered the oldest known papyrus. It consists of three sections, one dealing with human medicine, the second with veterinary science, and the third with mathematics. Moses lived in Egypt (1393-1273). There was no hindsight for Moses, when his books was written. You will find a lot more modern medicine in the Bible then you will the medical books written in Moses time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hm, no. The problem with the Biblical approach is that it is 100% based on hindsight.
When you read the creation story in the Bible, you don't see any hints about a "universe", about "expansion", about a state of "no space, matter energy or time".
What you see is a planet that wasn't there, was "spoken" about, was there and poof... animals and trees and sunshine.
There is nothing there that would lead to scientific curiosity. There is nothing there that would lead to any hypothesis that could be tested.
Only in hindsight can you try to fit the few pieces of information that you can get from the Bible together with a scientific worldview. And in hindsight, it always works, because the "supernatural" explanation requires it to work.

First of all the Bible does talk about the heavens being spread out...
I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.
Isaiah 45:12

And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where [is] the fury of the oppressor?
Isaiah 51:13

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jeremiah 10:12

He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.
Jeremiah 51:15


Universe had a beginning.

Genesis 1:1 claims that there was a beginning to the universe

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth

Gen. 1:2 The earth was without form … Earth didn't exist yet.

… and empty, ...
There was no matter at this time.

… with darkness on the face of the depths, …

Light was trapped by free electrons in the universe at this time.

… but God’s spirit moved on the water’s surface.
The Universe consisted of a perfect liquid in its first moments, according to results from an atom-smashing experiment.

Gen. 1:3 God said, ‘There shall be light,’ and light came into existence.

light is nature's way of transferring energy through space.

In conclusion: the universe had a beginning; then time began and with it space, matter, energy.

 

[Freodin]

First of all the Bible does talk about the heavens being spread out...
***snip***

This is exactly what I mean with "100% correct in hindsight".

Let's look at Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

God stretches out the heavens... as a curtain, as a tent.
For someone comming from a non-scientific community, one accustomed to nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles, this is very clear: there is a heaven.. You can see it. It's blue and above our heads. It is a vast expanse of some kind of fabric, like a curtain or a tend that is above our head... just a lot bigger!

You can see it... and here is the Bible verifying it that it is correct.

If you accept heaven as a massive dome above the earth... you can read the Bible and see that you are correct. If you see heaven as the space-time-continuum... you can read the Bible and see that you are correct.
But you will never get the slightest notion of a twelve-or-higher dimensional space-time continuum by reading about a heaven that is like a tent.

That is the problem. It is not that the Bible wasn't taken seriously... it was. But taking it seriously doesn't help you making new discoveries when it always confirms what you already think. Hindsight.

 

[quatona]

What would prohibit a supernatural cause?

I didn´t say anything about "prohibition".

Why?

Because there´s no epistemology of "the supernatural". There isn´t even a positive definition of "the supernatural". "It´s supernatural" means just throwing up your arms saying "I can´t explain it, but there is an idea that I like."
Someone could just as well claim the universe created itself "supernaturally", or the universe popped into existence from nothing "supernaturally".

Science looks for explanations that best explain the evidence. Yes, it limits itself to the natural world. That doesn't mean that is all there is.

I didn´t say that. Don´t shift the goalposts, address the arguments as I made them.

God created the universe from nothing is the claim.

If there was God there wasn´t "nothing".

That is true. That doesn't make all such claims or confirmations equal. Science discovers and the evidence doesn't limit itself to the naturalistic worldview.

Try again. Just once try to address what I said.

 

[[serious]]

By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

This is contradicting what you were saying about the laws of physics being eternal and uncaused.

Nope, read it again.

 

[[serious]]

Well that simply is untrue. Why would the laws have always been there when they are here to govern our universe.

You are arbitrarily assigning purpose.