There is no logical argument to support ATHEISM

[cvanwey]

Please clearly provide your position so that we can move forward.

I do not know if there is a god, gods, no god(s), etc? I do not know if the 'universe' is eternal or finite?

In regards to the concept of 'god' and the 'universe', I stand by post #340:

"Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?"

Thus far, I see blank assertions. I have repeatedly asked you to cite sources. I also told you it would seem reasonable to ignore your blank assertions, until you at least cite your sources. You have repeatedly not given any.

The 'god argument' is nothing new. Philosophers have been debating this concept for thousands of years. We look to be no closer in 'proving' god's existence. In fact, it seems that the more we discover scientifically, the further away we seem to get from the assertions of, at least, the Christian asserted God.?.?

Am I asserting YHWH does not exist? NO. Do I harbor much doubt? YES.

Again, if the universe does happen to be eternal, seems logically consistent to exclude the concept of creationism. But for now, scientists do not know. Scientists do not know many things. Maybe some day they will, or maybe not. But for you to assert a conclusion, in the mean time, looks to invoke fallacious reasoning, wouldn't you agree?

I have watched a debate between him and William Lane Craig. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which.

Look, I can do this too

I have watched a debate between him and [Sean Carroll]. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which.

 

[Paul.]

I do not know if there is a god, gods, no god(s), etc? I do not know if the 'universe' is eternal or finite?

In regards to the concept of 'god' and the 'universe', I stand by post #340:

"Care to provide information on your conclusions, which present an element/feature/characteristic/other, which demonstrates the existence of another realm, outside materialism - (which does not impose a plausible blank assertion or fallacious reasoning)?"

Thus far, I see blank assertions. I have repeatedly asked you to cite sources. I also told you it would seem reasonable to ignore your blank assertions, until you at least cite your sources. You have repeatedly not given any.

The 'god argument' is nothing new. Philosophers have been debating this concept for thousands of years. We look to be no closer in 'proving' god's existence. In fact, it seems that the more we discover scientifically, the further away we seem to get from the assertions of, at least, the Christian asserted God.?.?

Am I asserting YHWH does not exist? NO. Do I harbor much doubt? YES.

Again, if the universe does happen to be eternal, seems logically consistent to exclude the concept of creationism. But for now, scientists do not know. Scientists do not know many things. Maybe some day they will, or maybe not. But for you to assert a conclusion, in the mean time, looks to invoke fallacious reasoning, wouldn't you agree?

Look, I can do this too

You have not quoted most of the post. I will quote it here

Before we get into all that I am having to clarification on your position on the first reason which is from logic alone. If you know of any objections in the logic or reasoning, then please state them. If you can find no errors in logic or reason but would like to reverse the right to try again later, please confirm this. Clarity in logic and reasoning is import because it provides the basis of evaluating any arguments or evidence.

And also restate it here for your convenience. Before we get into all the science, I do require clarification on your position on the first reason which shows from logic alone that time is finite. If you know of any objections to the logic or reasoning, then please state them. If you can find no errors in logic or reason at this point in time but would like to reverse the right to mention some later, please confirm this.

I have watched a debate between him and [Sean Carroll]. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which.

Thank you for pointing that. It makes me glad I did not make him my final authority on what is correct and what is not.

 

[cvanwey]

You have not quoted most of the post. I will quote it here

And also restate it here for your convenience. Before we get into all the science, I do require clarification on your position on the first reason which shows from logic alone that time is finite. If you know of any objections to the logic or reasoning, then please state them. If you can find no errors in logic or reason at this point in time but would like to reverse the right to mention some later, please confirm this.

Thank you for pointing that. It makes me glad I did not make him my final authority on what is correct and what is not.

I thank you for your efforts in the need for complete clarification.

I do not know how much more clear I can be. As stated before... Science is completely unsettled, in regards to the universe being finite (vs) eternal. And yet, you somehow wish to assert it is finite. Well, as I stated prior, where's your Nobel prize for this proper demonstration; since the entire scientific community does not have this vast topic resolved? This is why I'm asking you for your source(s). I would love to see them?

If you are going to go on record that the universe is finite, sources please?

And you completely missed my point. You are throwing out more blank statements. I 'quoted' your response, word for word, and merely replaced the person's name. You provided no details, no examples, no nothing....

I will repeat this statement below, for a third time.

If the universe IS eternal, then to assert creationism seems illogical. If the universe is finite, then theism is still completely at square one.

You want to assert the universe is finite. Again, why should I accept your argument, when the pronounced experts, whom know more than both you and I combined, do not have it figured out?

 

[Paul.]

I thank you for your efforts in the need for complete clarification.

I do not know how much more clear I can be. As stated before... Science is completely unsettled,

I am not talking science; I am talking logic and reason

in regards to the universe being finite (vs) eternal. And yet, you somehow wish to assert it is finite. Well, as I stated prior, where's your Nobel prize for this proper demonstration;

They don’t give a Nobel prize for logic and reason

since the entire scientific community does not have this vast topic resolved? This is why I'm asking you for your source(s). I would love to see them?

Logic and reason

If you are going to go on record that the universe is finite, sources please?

Logic and reason

And you completely missed my point. You are throwing out more blank statements. I 'quoted' your response, word for word, and merely replaced the person's name. You provided no details, no examples, no nothing....

I will repeat this statement below, for a third time.

If the universe IS eternal, then to assert creationism seems illogical. If the universe is finite, then theism is still completely at square one.

I don’t have any issue with what you just said as I already know it. I’m not bothered by it, so why are you?

You want to assert the universe is finite. Again, why should I accept your argument, when the pronounced experts, whom know more than both you and I combined, do not have it figured out?

I am not asking you to accept the argument. I expect you to think about it and use your logic and reasoning skills to determine its validity.

When you raise “pronounced experts” as authoritative, how do you know they are right?

I believe I see the reason we are not moving forward but I will need to test my deduction via a couple of questions.
1. Does the scientific method require logic and reason to work?
2. Does logic and reason require the scientific method to work?

 

[cvanwey]

I am not talking science; I am talking logic and reason

Having the ability to produce an argument, using blankly asserted premises, which lead to a conclusion, is not what will determine or solve the dilemma -- 'is the universe eternal or not?' Scientific evidence will. Thus far, looks like scientists do not yet have enough.

In this case, your premises will be required to be backed by science evidence. Hence, what sources/evidence are you using to formulate your premises?

They don’t give a Nobel prize for logic and reason

When did I say they did?

Logic and reason

Logic and reason

See below

I don’t have any issue with what you just said as I already know it. I’m not bothered by it, so why are you?

I'm not bothered, I'm perplexes? You claim you have 'reason and logic'. But when asked to give 'reason and logic' for your assessment about a provided video, you state:

"I have seen a number of Sean Carroll video’s and other material on his beliefs. The problem with Sean Carroll’s position is logical errors that cause incorrect conclusions. I do not need to have a degree in cosmology to spot an error in the reasoning of his worldview."

I then asked if you could point them out, in a admittedly sort of 'cheeky sort of way.'

Your response was:

"I have watched a debate between him and William Lane Craig. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which."

If you care not to engage, and wish to, thus far, make blank assertions, as I also noted not to do in post #340, then why should I continue to bother with you further?

See below...

I am not asking you to accept the argument. I expect you to think about it and use your logic and reasoning skills to determine its validity.

Um, I already did that. The scientific community is completely divided. Thus, I am not going to assert a conclusion. I remain undecided. I neither assert eternal or finite.

You, on the other hand, are deciding it IS concluded. And you care not to provide the sources of your research; even when asked multiple times? What are you so afraid of? I would simply like to know what sources you found so dang compelling?

When you raise “pronounced experts” as authoritative, how do you know they are right?

Oh please, we just jumped back many posts Post #384 -- If you are going to reduce any/all conversation into 'philosophical absolutes', then we can just stop now.

As I also stated in another post... Scientists hardly go around pronouncing absolutes. However, theists do. Including you. You assert the universe is finite. I would just like to know what sources you used to reach this final conclusion? Since you are self-admittedly not a relevant scientist yourself, I trust you did not discover these findings on your own. But you continue to seem quite shy, where this direct question is concerned.

1. Does the scientific method require logic and reason to work?

LOL. I would say yes. And thus far, your 'reason and logic' clearly demonstrates the bottom of post #340.

2. Does logic and reason require the scientific method to work?

This was already answered at the top, underlined.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am not talking science; I am talking logic and reason

They don’t give a Nobel prize for logic and reason

Logic and reason

Logic and reason

I don’t have any issue with what you just said as I already know it. I’m not bothered by it, so why are you?

I am not asking you to accept the argument. I expect you to think about it and use your logic and reasoning skills to determine its validity.

When you raise “pronounced experts” as authoritative, how do you know they are right?

I believe I see the reason we are not moving forward but I will need to test my deduction via a couple of questions.
1. Does the scientific method require logic and reason to work?
2. Does logic and reason require the scientific method to work?

But you’re not talking logic and reason, you’re talking argument from incredulity. Nothing more.

 

[cvanwey]

But you’re not talking logic and reason, you’re talking argument from incredulity. Nothing more.

Yes, he continues do what I asked him not to do, in the bottom of post #340.

 

[Paul.]

Having the ability to produce an argument, using blankly asserted premises, which lead to a conclusion, is not what will determine or solve the dilemma -- 'is the universe eternal or not?' Scientific evidence will. Thus far, looks like scientists do not yet have enough.

In this case, your premises will be required to be backed by science evidence. Hence, what sources/evidence are you using to formulate your premises?

The two questions at the bottom of my post were to identify the main difference in thinking starting points and I think they have done so. The answer to the second question is supposed to be in the last paragraph above, however the question was a yes or no question in relation to the relationship between the scientific method and logic and reason. If logic and reason does not require the scientific method; why not admit it?

I will go through the argument in more detail. Do you accept the premise that we experience time moving toward the future?

When did I say they did?

You didn’t. Nobody said you did. If you didn’t get the quip we can just move on as it was not substantive.

I'm not bothered, I'm perplexes? You claim you have 'reason and logic'. But when asked to give 'reason and logic' for your assessment about a provided video, you state:

"I have seen a number of Sean Carroll video’s and other material on his beliefs. The problem with Sean Carroll’s position is logical errors that cause incorrect conclusions. I do not need to have a degree in cosmology to spot an error in the reasoning of his worldview."

I then asked if you could point them out, in a admittedly sort of 'cheeky sort of way.'

Your response was:

"I have watched a debate between him and William Lane Craig. I was not impressed, especially with an error in logical reasoning produced in the closing statement, or was it the questions, I can’t remember exactly which."

If you care not to engage, and wish to, thus far, make blank assertions, as I also noted not to do in post #340, then why should I continue to bother with you further?

As previously stated, I do not provide arguments against videos, books etc. I only provide arguments against what people can expound. Sean Carroll is wrong on a number of issues. You did not ask for an example at all. You quipped, so I quipped. One good quip deserves another.

Um, I already did that. The scientific community is completely divided. Thus, I am not going to assert a conclusion. I remain undecided. I neither assert eternal or finite.

You, on the other hand, are deciding it IS concluded. And you care not to provide the sources of your research; even when asked multiple times? What are you so afraid of? I would simply like to know what sources you found so dang compelling?

If the consensus of all scientists was the only source of knowledge then the matter is not decided. Is it possible that other sources of knowledge can provide the answer or do you hold to the idea (as some have expressed in these forums) that scientific knowledge is the only source of knowledge?

Oh please, we just jumped back many posts Post #384 -- If you are going to reduce any/all conversation into 'philosophical absolutes', then we can just stop now.

As I also stated in another post... Scientists hardly go around pronouncing absolutes. However, theists do. Including you. You assert the universe is finite. I would just like to know what sources you used to reach this final conclusion? Since you are self-admittedly not a relevant scientist yourself, I trust you did not discover these findings on your own. But you continue to seem quite shy, where this direct question is concerned.

You seem troubled by the idea of philosophical absolutes. Do you deny any philosophical absolutes exist? For instance, do you accept that absolute truth exists?

LOL. I would say yes. And thus far, your 'reason and logic' clearly demonstrates the bottom of post #340.

This was already answered at the top, underlined.

A straight answer of yes to the question; does the scientific method require logic and reason. The second question; does logic and reason require the scientific method is not provided as a yes or no with qualification.

 

[cvanwey]

The two questions at the bottom of my post were to identify the main difference in thinking starting points and I think they have done so. The answer to the second question is supposed to be in the last paragraph above, however the question was a yes or no question in relation to the relationship between the scientific method and logic and reason. If logic and reason does not require the scientific method; why not admit it?

The topic of 'reason and logic" is broad and vast. There is nothing to 'admit'. Stating 'yes' really gets us no closer to anything. You already laid some of your cards on the table. In post #391, you stated:

1. If the universe is eternal you have an infinite number of yesterdays. You cannot traverse an infinite number of yesterdays from eternity past to get to today. Infinite is not possible in the real world only the theoretical.
2. The universe is running out of usable energy and one day will experience heat death if nothing interferes with this process. If the universe is eternal then this heat death would have already occurred in the infinite past. The universe does not have infinite energy inside it.
3. The idea of infinite Big bangs and then collapse only to bang again fails as the process would cause energy loss. You don’t have an infinite amount of energy inside of the universe to keep the process going.
4. Radioactive decay shows that the radioactive elements are not eternally old. If they were they would have decayed completely and no longer be radioactive.

Since you already admitted you are not a relative scientist, you likely obtained your information from external means. As I continue to state in post #340, blank assertions mean nothing to me. Sources please?

I will go through the argument in more detail. Do you accept the premise that we experience time moving toward the future?

This statement, thus far, is incorrect. We are at post #409, and you refuse to cite sources of your prior premises / assertions.

As previously stated, I do not provide arguments against videos, books etc. I only provide arguments against what people can expound. Sean Carroll is wrong on a number of issues. You did not ask for an example at all. You quipped, so I quipped. One good quip deserves another.

As I have been stating, I care not to argue against blank assertions. And yet, this is quickly becoming your M.O. Furthermore, the initial video was to demonstrate that 'the-world-of-science', in regards to 'Big Bang cosmology', are still investigating. And yet, somehow you want to assert a finite universe, and want me to engage in blank assertions.

Your given premises, thus far, are empty words.

If the consensus of all scientists was the only source of knowledge then the matter is not decided. Is it possible that other sources of knowledge can provide the answer or do you hold to the idea (as some have expressed in these forums) that scientific knowledge is the only source of knowledge?

Fair question. Let me answer you by asking a couple of question(s) in return.

In regards to the topic of the 'universe' entire, do you feel there exists a logical premise which does not involve or require 'the scientific endeavor', in some capacity, as your 'sources of knowledge'? This is a yes or no question

Also...

Has philosophy ever been successful in establishing any resolve on it's own, on the matters of 'science', without the help of scientific discovery, in some capacity? This is also a yes or no question.

You seem troubled by the idea of philosophical absolutes. Do you deny any philosophical absolutes exist? For instance, do you accept that absolute truth exists?

You must have missed my response. Immediately after this, I stated:

"Scientists hardly go around pronouncing absolutes. However, theists do. Including you. You assert the universe is finite. I would just like to know what sources you used to reach this final conclusion? Since you are self-admittedly not a relevant scientist yourself, I trust you did not discover these findings on your own. But you continue to seem quite shy, where this direct question is concerned."

Are you ever going to answer? Or is this exchange going to continue becoming more and more painful?

A straight answer of yes to the question; does the scientific method require logic and reason. The second question; does logic and reason require the scientific method is not provided as a yes or no with qualification.

Already answered, with explanation.

Just to recap...

- 'Science' currently makes no conclusions about the universe being eternal or not eternal, but [you] do?
- I have provided links and a video to demonstrate the above statement/observation.
- You have repeatedly made blank assertions, both about Sean Carroll's logic, and additional assertions in post #391.
- I have asked for sources of these assertion(s).
- You continue not to provide them.
- I provided links to articles - (sources), which suggest the idea of an eternal universe.
- I also admit I am not equipped to formulate a conclusion, especially since I am not in the relevant field.

 

[Paul.]

The topic of 'reason and logic" is broad and vast. There is nothing to 'admit'. Stating 'yes' really gets us no closer to anything.

So is that yes, logic and reason do require the scientific method?
Or is it yes, logic and reason do not require the scientific method?
Saying yes to which you believe to be correct does get us further in our understanding of what you believe to be true.

You already laid some of your cards on the table. In post #391, you stated:

1. If the universe is eternal you have an infinite number of yesterdays. You cannot traverse an infinite number of yesterdays from eternity past to get to today. Infinite is not possible in the real world only the theoretical.
2. The universe is running out of usable energy and one day will experience heat death if nothing interferes with this process. If the universe is eternal then this heat death would have already occurred in the infinite past. The universe does not have infinite energy inside it.
3. The idea of infinite Big bangs and then collapse only to bang again fails as the process would cause energy loss. You don’t have an infinite amount of energy inside of the universe to keep the process going.
4. Radioactive decay shows that the radioactive elements are not eternally old. If they were they would have decayed completely and no longer be radioactive.

Since you already admitted you are not a relative scientist, you likely obtained your information from external means. As I continue to state in post #340, blank assertions mean nothing to me. Sources please?

All knowledge is built on the backs of those ideas which have come before as a general rule and I do not claim to providing new conclusions that no one else has mentioned. As stated we can go through each one by one. Personally I find that looking at each in turn provides a logical approach. So let us continue with number 1.

This statement, thus far, is incorrect. We are at post #409, and you refuse to cite sources of your prior premises / assertions.

Since you do not accept the premise, let us go through it.

1. We (humans, people or homo sapiens)​

I believe you are in this category but if I am wrong then feel free to correct me

2. experience time​

Do you exist inside time? Do you experience time passing? Do you know of any human who is outside of time? Has any human being existed outside of time? Do you know of any human who is not subject to time?

3. moving toward the future​

We experience time going from yesterday to today to tomorrow. For people time is moving towards the future not the past. We pass through time from baby to child to adult to death. Or are you like Benjamin Button and experience time going backwards?

Which part of describing the way in which people experience time passing by do you disagree with? Since you have stated it is incorrect then explain how and\or why.

As I have been stating, I care not to argue against blank assertions. And yet, this is quickly becoming your M.O. Furthermore, the initial video was to demonstrate that 'the-world-of-science', in regards to 'Big Bang cosmology', are still investigating. And yet, somehow you want to assert a finite universe, and want me to engage in blank assertions.

Your given premises, thus far, are empty words.

The fact that the universe is expanding shows that it’s size at least is finite. Do you disagree?

Fair question. Let me answer you by asking a couple of question(s) in return.

Since it is fair question then it is surprising you have not provided an answer. Are you ashamed of the answer?

In regards to the topic of the 'universe' entire, do you feel there exists a logical premise which does not involve or require 'the scientific endeavor', in some capacity, as your 'sources of knowledge'? This is a yes or no question

What do you define the phrase scientific endeavour as?

Also...

Has philosophy ever been successful in establishing any resolve on it's own, on the matters of 'science', without the help of scientific discovery, in some capacity? This is also a yes or no question.

Would you explain the question please as I am not entirely sure I understand what you are asking?

You must have missed my response. Immediately after this, I stated:

"Scientists hardly go around pronouncing absolutes.

Scientists pronounce absolutes. The earth is a globe. The Higgs Boson was discovered and the Higgs Field exists. Germs exist. Atoms exist. These are not maybe or probably or most likely, they are stated as this is the way it is. It is more than hardly.

However, theists do. Including you. You assert the universe is finite.

The fact that the universe is expanding shows that in size at least; it is finite. Agreed?

I would just like to know what sources you used to reach this final conclusion? Since you are self-admittedly not a relevant scientist yourself, I trust you did not discover these findings on your own. But you continue to seem quite shy, where this direct question is concerned." Are you ever going to answer? Or is this exchange going to continue becoming more and more painful?

I stated we will go through them all in due course. You seem to want to put the cart before the horse and not finish with the first point before moving to the second.

 

[cvanwey]

So is that yes, logic and reason do require the scientific method?
Or is it yes, logic and reason do not require the scientific method?
Saying yes to which you believe to be correct does get us further in our understanding of what you believe to be true.

For someone whom wishes to harp upon the topic of 'reason and logic', you do not seem to mind stepping all over it...

Again, blankly asserted premises gets us no closer to truth. See below...

All knowledge is built on the backs of those ideas which have come before as a general rule and I do not claim to providing new conclusions that no one else has mentioned. As stated we can go through each one by one. Personally I find that looking at each in turn provides a logical approach. So let us continue with number 1.

See below...

Since you do not accept the premise, let us go through it.

1. We (humans, people or homo sapiens)​

I believe you are in this category but if I am wrong then feel free to correct me

2. experience time​

Do you exist inside time? Do you experience time passing? Do you know of any human who is outside of time? Has any human being existed outside of time? Do you know of any human who is not subject to time?

3. moving toward the future​

We experience time going from yesterday to today to tomorrow. For people time is moving towards the future not the past. We pass through time from baby to child to adult to death. Or are you like Benjamin Button and experience time going backwards?

Which part of describing the way in which people experience time passing by do you disagree with? Since you have stated it is incorrect then explain how and\or why.

You will have to again go back to the 9 minute video. I have to ask you... Is Sean Carroll a liar? Is he lying when he makes the statement 'we don't know yet.' Do scientists really know, and Sean Carroll is in his own little bubble, like the "flat earth society" or something?

Furthermore, you do not think scientists have already considered your questions, along with many others? Or wait, do you actually think you raise valid points, for which scientists have not accounted for ?.?.?.?

Again, I am not making a positive claim for either finite or eternal. But YOU are. Thus, it is your burden to prove. Not mine.

Request #5: Sources please!

The fact that the universe is expanding shows that it’s size at least is finite. Do you disagree?

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Again, I am not making a positive claim for either an eternal or a finite universe. [You] are! But again, I highly doubt you are the first one to raise this question. If it was such a 'show-stopper', then science should have the matter settled. And yet, they do not seem to, do they?

Since it is fair question then it is surprising you have not provided an answer. Are you ashamed of the answer?

The questions answer themselves Thus far, the topic of philosophy does not look able to resolve such a matter, without outside help. And in this case, the outside help looks to be 'science'.

What do you define the phrase scientific endeavour as?

Please see above

Would you explain the question please as I am not entirely sure I understand what you are asking?

Please see above

Scientists pronounce absolutes. The earth is a globe. The Higgs Boson was discovered and the Higgs Field exists. Germs exist. Atoms exist. These are not maybe or probably or most likely, they are stated as this is the way it is. It is more than hardly.

No. It is not absolute:

"The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases"

100 years ago, the earth was a perfect sphere, now it is identified as pair shaped. The consensus may change again someday.

Again, you assert the universe is finite. Do you acknowledge that relevant scientists don't?

The fact that the universe is expanding shows that in size at least; it is finite. Agreed?

Again, you don't think scientists have already taken this into consideration?

I stated we will go through them all in due course. You seem to want to put the cart before the horse and not finish with the first point before moving to the second.

Please cite your sources.

 

[Paul.]

Is Sean Carroll a liar? Is he lying when he makes the statement 'we don't know yet.' Do scientists really know, and Sean Carroll is in his own little bubble, like the "flat earth society" or something?

Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view is what makes him come to the conclusions he does. Unfortunately, I have heard him make a logical fallacious argument that I would expect to hear from flat earthers which really surprised me.

Furthermore, you do not think scientists have already considered your questions, along with many others? Or wait, do you actually think you raise valid points, for which scientists have not accounted for ?.?.?.?

The majority philosophical world view today in science causes conclusions that require them to discount such questions.

Since you are not able to point out any errors with the explained premise then there are none or it is above your reasoning ability to do so. I do not know which is correct but I know one of them must be the case otherwise you would have pointed them out.

Again, I am not making a positive claim for either finite or eternal. But YOU are. Thus, it is your burden to prove. Not mine.

And when provided with any evidence you state …

I don't know. I'm not a scientist. Again, I am not making a positive claim for either an eternal or a finite universe. [You] are! But again, I highly doubt you are the first one to raise this question. If it was such a 'show-stopper', then science should have the matter settled. And yet, they do not seem to, do they?

Then you refuse to engage with the information claiming that science has the answer. How did you decide that the majority scientific opinion is the correct answer? How do you know you made the right choice?

The questions answer themselves Thus far, the topic of philosophy does not look able to resolve such a matter, without outside help. And in this case, the outside help looks to be 'science'.

I am not a defender of philosophy. I recognize that different disciplines provide different sources of knowledge. Mathematics is not science and knowledge is gained from mathematics. Science is there not the only source of knowledge. Science relies on mathematics. Science therefore is not a primary source of knowledge but a secondary source of knowledge in the same sense that green is a secondary colour and not a primary colour because it relies on the primary colours of blue and yellow. Being a secondary source does not lesson its importance.

Speaking of maths; numbers are immaterial therefore the immaterial exists.

No. It is not absolute:

"The germ theory of disease is the currently accepted scientific theory for many diseases"

You are wrong. I did not state how germs operate, I stated that they exist. Germ theory is about how germs operate and accepts as an absolute that germs exist in the first place. In the beginning of germ theory the existence of gems was determined by the theory working. Today the existence of germs is absolute as they can be seen under the microscope.

100 years ago, the earth was a perfect sphere, now it is identified as pair shaped. The consensus may change again someday.

In both cases that is a globe earth as opposed to a flat earth. The earth is not perfectly round due to the terrain and this fact does not change that it is not a flat earth. There will never be a change on the absolute that the earth is not flat.

Again, you assert the universe is finite. Do you acknowledge that relevant scientists don't?

Are all scientists relevant or only the ones whose opinion agrees with your philosophical world view?

Please cite your sources.

Again, when we get to point 2, I will provide sources for point 2.

 

[cvanwey]

I again need to preface the following.... Scientists do not know if the universe is finite or eternal. I myself am not going to assert a conclusion either way, especially in light of the fact that I have not studied the matter nearly as much. Hence, I remain undecided or neutral.

However, you assert it is finite???? What do [you] know that all of 'science' does not?

Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view is what makes him come to the conclusions he does. Unfortunately, I have heard him make a logical fallacious argument that I would expect to hear from flat earthers which really surprised me.

You have again made another blank assessment about him. Furthermore, you did not answer the question. Is he a liar? DOES 'science' assert the universe is finite, and Mr. Carroll is in his own little bubble?

The majority philosophical world view today in science causes conclusions that require them to discount such questions.

Since you are not able to point out any errors with the explained premise then there are none or it is above your reasoning ability to do so. I do not know which is correct but I know one of them must be the case otherwise you would have pointed them out.

You did not address my prior response. And no, your assessment looks to be incorrect. Let me rephrase, for further clarity...

You could bring up seemingly relevant points. But if you do not know all the factors at play, as you are admittedly not a cosmologist, these 'observations' may not actually even be relevant?

I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????

It's like Mr. Carroll stated in the video. It could be like asking, "what is north of the north pole?"

And when provided with any evidence you state …

Then you refuse to engage with the information claiming that science has the answer. How did you decide that the majority scientific opinion is the correct answer? How do you know you made the right choice?

In regards to physics and cosmology, I'm aware enough to know I do not know enough Hence, I am not equipped to assert a conclusion (either/or); especially in light of the current climate. Many models are floating around. None are asserted. But somehow, you want to hand wave them away, and assert it MUST be finite? Hence, I again ask that you present your findings to a relevant scientist and see how that goes

I am not a defender of philosophy. I recognize that different disciplines provide different sources of knowledge. Mathematics is not science and knowledge is gained from mathematics. Science is there not the only source of knowledge. Science relies on mathematics. Science therefore is not a primary source of knowledge but a secondary source of knowledge in the same sense that green is a secondary colour and not a primary colour because it relies on the primary colours of blue and yellow. Being a secondary source does not lesson its importance.

Speaking of maths; numbers are immaterial therefore the immaterial exists.

Did you concede my point? In regards to the assertion of the universe being finite/eternal, is 'scientific discovery' a requirement?

You are wrong. I did not state how germs operate, I stated that they exist. Germ theory is about how germs operate and accepts as an absolute that germs exist in the first place. In the beginning of germ theory the existence of gems was determined by the theory working. Today the existence of germs is absolute as they can be seen under the microscope.

Nothing is absolute. But I do agree with you, that germs 'do' exist And I also agree that there looks to be much more evidence, to get us closer to the claims of an absolute - about the vary existence of germs, verses other claims of 'absolute'.

Which circles us right back to your assertion about the universe being finite. How absolute would you say this claim might be - (on a scale of 1-10)? I myself place the existence of germs at 9.99999. What about "the universe being finite"? How would you rate this absolute conclusion?

In both cases that is a globe earth as opposed to a flat earth. The earth is not perfectly round due to the terrain and this fact does not change that it is not a flat earth. There will never be a change on the absolute that the earth is not flat.

Please see above.

Are all scientists relevant or only the ones whose opinion agrees with your philosophical world view?

I'll throw you a bone here. Are scientists in as much agreement about 'the universe being finite', as much so as they are about the existence of germs or the relative shape of the earth?

If so, I'm certainly not aware????

Again, when we get to point 2, I will provide sources for point 2.

I won't hold my breath

 

[Paul.]

I again need to preface the following.... Scientists do not know if the universe is finite or eternal. I myself am not going to assert a conclusion either way, especially in light of the fact that I have not studied the matter nearly as much. Hence, I remain undecided or neutral.

However, you assert it is finite???? What do [you] know that all of 'science' does not?

My world view allows me to accept the evidence. Lawrence Krauss says he does not know if the universe had a beginning and admits that if he had to choose then it probably did. The evidence points to a beginning, all the workable models for a Big Bang include the universe as having a beginning but he is not yet convinced. Why look for an alternative when the evidence points only in one direction? His philosophical world view requires it, not the evidence.

Science does not make conclusions, scientists do.

You have again made another blank assessment about him.

You have not asked for the reference so I can only surmise you do not want to hear it for yourself.

Furthermore, you did not answer the question. Is he a liar? DOES 'science' assert the universe is finite, and Mr. Carroll is in his own little bubble?

Like Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view requires he keeps looking for an alternative to the universe having a beginning and speculating on these alternatives.

You did not address my prior response. And no, your assessment looks to be incorrect. Let me rephrase, for further clarity...

You could bring up seemingly relevant points. But if you do not know all the factors at play, as you are admittedly not a cosmologist, these 'observations' may not actually even be relevant?

I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????

It's like Mr. Carroll stated in the video. It could be like asking, "what is north of the north pole?"

If science is “systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” then eternal is not a scientific concept. Eternal, like infinite, is a concept that can be accepted but observing the actualization is not possible.

They are not scientific concepts only and when you ask the question “Is the universe eternal?” you are asking a question that has non-scientific concepts that need to be harmonized. Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view is what causes him to speculate as you stated.

In regards to physics and cosmology, I'm aware enough to know I do not know enough Hence, I am not equipped to assert a conclusion (either/or); especially in light of the current climate.

And since you do not know enough you default to the majority scientific opinion. How do you know you have chosen the right default to follow if you do not know enough to determine if what it is saying is correct?

Many models are floating around. None are asserted. But somehow, you want to hand wave them away, and assert it MUST be finite? Hence, I again ask that you present your findings to a relevant scientist and see how that goes

As Lawrence Krauss has stated in a debate, “science can never tell anything with absolute certainty, except things that are wrong, that’s what can science can tell us.” Since there are only two options and the eternal option can be shown to be false, then such a certainty is within science according to a world renowned scientist on your side of the debate.

Did you concede my point? In regards to the assertion of the universe being finite/eternal, is 'scientific discovery' a requirement?

In regards to the size of the universe being finite, I have always based this on scientific observation. Yet you do not like the logical conclusions of the observations.

Since eternal is not a scientific concept you must be able to deal with the non-scientific aspects as well as the scientific aspects of the issue. Defaulting to the majority scientific opinion just means someone else does the thinking for you. How did you choose majority scientific opinion as your champion and how do you know you have made the right choice?

Speaking of choices, you chose to ignore the comment that numbers are immaterial objects. This causes materialism to be a false world view.

Nothing is absolute.

Lawrence Krauss disagrees with your assertion

Does that mean absolute truth does not exist? You did not answer this question previously.

But I do agree with you, that germs 'do' exist And I also agree that there looks to be much more evidence, to get us closer to the claims of an absolute - about the vary existence of germs, verses other claims of 'absolute'.

Which circles us right back to your assertion about the universe being finite. How absolute would you say this claim might be - (on a scale of 1-10)? I myself place the existence of germs at 9.99999. What about "the universe being finite"? How would you rate this absolute conclusion?

If you saw bacteria under a microscope would that increase the microscope would that change 9.99999 to 10?

On your scale where do you place; beyond reasonable doubt?

I'll throw you a bone here. Are scientists in as much agreement about 'the universe being finite', as much so as they are about the existence of germs or the relative shape of the earth?

If so, I'm certainly not aware????

Since I do not rely on the majority scientific opinion as my default this is a non-issue for me.

 

[cvanwey]

My world view allows me to accept the evidence. Lawrence Krauss says he does not know if the universe had a beginning and admits that if he had to choose then it probably did. The evidence points to a beginning, all the workable models for a Big Bang include the universe as having a beginning but he is not yet convinced. Why look for an alternative when the evidence points only in one direction? His philosophical world view requires it, not the evidence.

What are you insinuating? Please recall what I, myself, stated long ago. If the universe is eternal, seems to be relative game over for the assertion of 'creationism'. If the universe turns out finite, then theism still has every bit as much work ahead of them to demonstrate. You already agreed. Nothing really changes. I sincerely doubt Mr. Krauss holds out, due to what you may be suggesting? It's fair to say, he is holding out because he does not yet have enough data to reach a conclusion.

But thank you for acknowledging that the experts, whom extensively peer review all given discovery thus far, have not concluded 'THE' answer

You have not asked for the reference so I can only surmise you do not want to hear it for yourself.

I believe I did, and you stated something to the affect of.... "I watched his debate against WLC,....blah (more blank assertions)." I'm not going to bother trying to find it again....

Like Lawrence Krauss, Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view requires he keeps looking for an alternative to the universe having a beginning and speculating on these alternatives.

You still did not answer the question. Let's try for a third time:

Is he a liar? DOES 'science' assert the universe is finite, and Mr. Carroll is in his own little bubble? It's a yes or no question.

And to answer your direct irrelevant response, I addressed this directly above:

"It's fair to say, he is holding out become he does not yet have enough data to reach a conclusion."

If science is “systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment” then eternal is not a scientific concept. Eternal, like infinite, is a concept that can be accepted but observing the actualization is not possible.

They are not scientific concepts only and when you ask the question “Is the universe eternal?” you are asking a question that has non-scientific concepts that need to be harmonized. Sean Carroll’s philosophical world view is what causes him to speculate as you stated.

IF is the operative word. However, I'm pretty sure 'science' is not limited to your given definition Seems as though some scientific theory has been concluded and taught, above and beyond your narrow definition.

Furthermore, I have already answered your response about their 'worldview' twice above.

However, you have again avoided another direct question:

"I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????"

And furthermore, you could be asking irrelevant questions or making irrelevant assertions, (i.e. post #390). It could be like asking "what is colder than absolute zero?" If you are not aware of the foundation, you could be making incorrect assumptions and/or asking nonsensical questions.?.?.?

And since you do not know enough you default to the majority scientific opinion. How do you know you have chosen the right default to follow if you do not know enough to determine if what it is saying is correct?

I chose neither. I remain neutral. This would be hasty. A more relevant response would be, " 'we' don't know yet." Not instead assert "it is finite"

As Lawrence Krauss has stated in a debate, “science can never tell anything with absolute certainty, except things that are wrong, that’s what can science can tell us.” Since there are only two options and the eternal option can be shown to be false, then such a certainty is within science according to a world renowned scientist on your side of the debate.

You have again not addressed my point.(i.e.)

"Many models are floating around. None are asserted. But somehow, you want to hand wave them away, and assert it MUST be finite? Hence, I again ask that you present your findings to a relevant scientist and see how that goes"

But to address your response.... I would agree with his statement. We can rule stuff out, with 99.99999% confidence. Such as, the prior notion that 'the world is a flat disc'.

But in regards to the universe being eternal, it does not appear to be nearly as close to being ruled out, now does it???

In regards to the size of the universe being finite, I have always based this on scientific observation. Yet you do not like the logical conclusions of the observations.

Since eternal is not a scientific concept you must be able to deal with the non-scientific aspects as well as the scientific aspects of the issue. Defaulting to the majority scientific opinion just means someone else does the thinking for you. How did you choose majority scientific opinion as your champion and how do you know you have made the right choice?

I don't like them? You continue to fail to catch my basic point. I'll state it, yet again.

"I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????"

Speaking of choices, you chose to ignore the comment that numbers are immaterial objects. This causes materialism to be a false world view.

Wow. 'Numbers' are abstract conceptual terms in which we humans invented and use to quantify concepts. It is your burden to prove they are anything more.

Lawrence Krauss disagrees with your assertion

Does that mean absolute truth does not exist? You did not answer this question previously.

Is 9.99999 out of '10' absolute? Furthermore, is the assertion that the 'universe is finite' equal to 9.999999 out of '10'?

If you saw bacteria under a microscope would that increase the microscope would that change 9.99999 to 10?

9.99999. Just like I [know] the earth is not flat, I exist, there's no square-circles, etc.

Thus, I ask again, for which you did not answer.

"How absolute would you say this claim might be - (on a scale of 1-10)? I myself place the existence of germs at 9.99999. What about "the universe being finite"? How would you rate this absolute conclusion?"

On your scale where do you place; beyond reasonable doubt?

Please see the top. It's relatively 50/50. Your turn?

Since I do not rely on the majority scientific opinion as my default this is a non-issue for me.

Why not admit you are not an expert in the field, and also admit that it's fairly safe to say that every conceivable point you have brought up has already extensively been addressed by the relative experts? My point about not having a consensus is that scientists do not jump to conclusions. But apparently, YOU do. And I can only ask why?

 

[Paul.]

What are you insinuating?

By which comment?

Please recall what I, myself, stated long ago. If the universe is eternal, seems to be relative game over for the assertion of 'creationism'. If the universe turns out finite, then theism still has every bit as much work ahead of them to demonstrate. You already agreed. Nothing really changes. I sincerely doubt Mr. Krauss holds out, due to what you may be suggesting?

You may doubt it but I think Richard Lewontin in his review of Carl Sagan’s book put it clearly when he stated;

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

It's fair to say, he is holding out because he does not yet have enough data to reach a conclusion.

When all the workable models are the ones with time as having a beginning and all the evidence is pointing that direction; speculating on a way in which there might not be a beginning is not coming from the observation of the data, it is not fair to say he is holding out due to the evidence. He may claim that but the evidence is not pointing in that direction.

But thank you for acknowledging that the experts, whom extensively peer review all given discovery thus far, have not concluded 'THE' answer

I knew you would like Lawrence Krauss. Did you like him as much further on when what he says contradicts what you say?

I believe I did, and you stated something to the affect of.... "I watched his debate against WLC,....blah (more blank assertions)." I'm not going to bother trying to find it again....

Your belief is very much mistaken. You have not asked for the reference still. If you every do ask for the reference, I will to provide the quote, where you can obtain it without having to sift through information to get it. You have not received such information because you have not requested it and if had to call it, I would say you did not want it and are not going to ask for it.

You still did not answer the question. Let's try for a third time:

To clarify in more detail

Is he a liar?

I believe he is stating what he believes, therefore his is not lying.

DOES 'science' assert the universe is finite,

Science does not assert anything. Scientists are the ones who assert things. The question would be more correctly stated; Does the majority scientific opinion currently assert the universe is finite? No it does not.

and Mr. Carroll is in his own little bubble? It's a yes or no question.

In the sense that he is ignoring answers that challenge his pre-defined world view then yes. But, he is not alone in that.

And to answer your direct irrelevant response, I addressed this directly above:

"It's fair to say, he is holding out become he does not yet have enough data to reach a conclusion."

It is totally relevant. As someone insightfully stated, “Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.”

Since materialism needs science to answer everything, this causes a problem with the world view of anyone who does not accept the existence of God as true.

IF is the operative word. However, I'm pretty sure 'science' is not limited to your given definition Seems as though some scientific theory has been concluded and taught, above and beyond your narrow definition.

Since this definition of science is not adequate, please provide one that is and be prepared to be able to justify it; if necessary.

Furthermore, I have already answered your response about their 'worldview' twice above.

And I have rejected your response with more detail.

However, you have again avoided another direct question:

"I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????"

Obviously; I don’t think it has been. I do not find any persuasive arguments that have shown the questions to no longer be required.

And furthermore, you could be asking irrelevant questions or making irrelevant assertions, (i.e. post #390). It could be like asking "what is colder than absolute zero?" If you are not aware of the foundation, you could be making incorrect assumptions and/or asking nonsensical questions.?.?.?

Speculation holds no sway, so I suggest avoiding it.

I chose neither. I remain neutral. This would be hasty. A more relevant response would be, " 'we' don't know yet." Not instead assert "it is finite"

Unfortunately, you are completely mistaken. You are not neutral at all. If you were neutral on the subject you would say that I could be right, the universe may have a beginning or the majority scientific option could be right and we just don’t know either way yet. That is a neutral position. Your position is that the majority scientific opinion is right; which is definitely not a neutral position.

So; how do you know that the majority scientific opinion is the correct opinion to follow?

You have again not addressed my point.(i.e.)

"Many models are floating around. None are asserted. But somehow, you want to hand wave them away, and assert it MUST be finite? Hence, I again ask that you present your findings to a relevant scientist and see how that goes"

As stated, all the models that currently work have a Big Bang with time beginning at the Big Bang. No other model that works has been found, including the Carroll Chen model which even Sean Carroll himself admits does not work. All models with eternal time fail and I am not surprised by this.

But to address your response.... I would agree with his statement. We can rule stuff out, with 99.99999% confidence. Such as, the prior notion that 'the world is a flat disc'.

That is not absolute certainty as stated by Lawrence Krauss

But in regards to the universe being eternal, it does not appear to be nearly as close to being ruled out, now does it???

That does not mean that this is what ought to be the case.

I don't like them? You continue to fail to catch my basic point. I'll state it, yet again.

"I again ask (logically).... Do you honestly think that your question(s) have not already been accounted for, by many, when and while scientists continue to consider the plausibility of an eternal universe????"

You have ignored the size question. Finite in size and finite in time are two different matters. The fact of the expanding universe on its own makes the conclusion that it is finite in size logically inescapable. It has no bearing on whether or not the universe is eternal or had a beginning. Do you accept that the universe is finite in size?

Answered elswehere

Wow. 'Numbers' are abstract conceptual terms in which we humans invented and use to quantify concepts. It is your burden to prove they are anything more.

The existence of abstract concepts which are not material by nature; shows that materialism is a false world view. One immaterial object is enough to prove materialism false. It does not prove the existence of other immaterial objects such as God but that is beside the point. Does this mean you now understand materialism to be false?

You have asserted that numbers are invented by humans. This implies that their existence is dependent upon humans. Can you prove this or do you accept quantities existed independent and prior to humans.

Is 9.99999 out of ‘10’ absolute? Furthermore, is the assertion that the ‘universe is finite’ equal to 9.999999 out of ‘10’?

So that’s a yes to their being absolute truth. OK.

9.99999. Just like I [know] the earth is not flat, I exist, there's no square-circles, etc.

Thus, I ask again, for which you did not answer.

"How absolute would you say this claim might be - (on a scale of 1-10)? I myself place the existence of germs at 9.99999. What about "the universe being finite"? How would you rate this absolute conclusion?"

On your scale I would put anything I am sure of at 9.9, so I am convinced to 9.9.

Please see the top. It's relatively 50/50. Your turn?

Beyond reasonable doubt is 5 out of 10? That’s the same odds as a flip of a coin. Can you be sure beyond reasonable doubt the coin will come up heads when flipped? Nope, there is good reason to believe it may come up tails when flipped. I recommend you check out the meaning of the phrase beyond reasonable doubt and try again.

Why not admit you are not an expert in the field, and also admit that it's fairly safe to say that every conceivable point you have brought up has already extensively been addressed by the relative experts? My point about not having a consensus is that scientists do not jump to conclusions. But apparently, YOU do. And I can only ask why?

When the evidence clearly shows that the universe cannot be eternal then it is not jumping to a conclusion.

Since you did not object, do you recognize that the question of an eternal universe is a cross discipline question that requires scientific and non-scientific concepts?

 

[cvanwey]

You may doubt it but I think Richard Lewontin in his review of Carl Sagan’s book put it clearly when he stated;

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

I've mentioned this several times now, for which you have already conceded. If the universe is eternal, game over for 'creationism.' If the universe is finite, deism/theism still has every bit of work left to do.

I do not flat out discard any claim. I reject, based upon level of probability. Has 'science' pointed us more towards or more away from 'divine anything'?

When all the workable models are the ones with time as having a beginning and all the evidence is pointing that direction; speculating on a way in which there might not be a beginning is not coming from the observation of the data, it is not fair to say he is holding out due to the evidence. He may claim that but the evidence is not pointing in that direction.

Again, empty and blank statements. This goes all the way back to post #340 now. Sources please. Here's mine, yet again:

The Big Bounce: Why our universe might be eternal

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

"The Eternal Universe?" --Astronomers Zero In On a Signal That Nixes the Big Bang | The Daily Galaxy

The above links are to demonstrate there still looks to be quite a lot yet to learn. Asserting preemptively seems hasty.

I knew you would like Lawrence Krauss. Did you like him as much further on when what he says contradicts what you say?

It's not about 'like' or 'dislike'. He too is a public figure. Furthermore, you have provided no sources, so I do not know exactly what he says, and in what context. You continue to issue blank assertions, just like I have been asking you not to do, all the way since post #340. And the pain continues....

Your belief is very much mistaken. You have not asked for the reference still. If you every do ask for the reference, I will to provide the quote, where you can obtain it without having to sift through information to get it. You have not received such information because you have not requested it and if had to call it, I would say you did not want it and are not going to ask for it.

I've asked you for your source information every response. Thus far, nada. Why should I expect anything different now?

I believe he is stating what he believes, therefore his is not lying.

Science does not assert anything. Scientists are the ones who assert things. The question would be more correctly stated; Does the majority scientific opinion currently assert the universe is finite? No it does not.

Now you are just producing a straw man. Please see my last comment:

DOES 'science' assert the universe is finite

Notice the 'quotes'.

Furthermore, do you concede that 'science' does not know? If so, then we just wasted a whole lot of time here....

In the sense that he is ignoring answers that challenge his pre-defined world view then yes. But, he is not alone in that.

You have quite the 'interesting' perception there. He is 'ignoring' them? He does not address them? Um, okay?

But thank you for adding the 'qualifier', "he is not alone in that."

You are a wealth of source information. Nothing you have said, or continue to say, lends anything to the bottom of post #340 (i.e.) - blank assertions.

It is totally relevant. As someone insightfully stated, “Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.”

Since materialism needs science to answer everything, this causes a problem with the world view of anyone who does not accept the existence of God as true.

I've addressed responses like this before. Even if we all concede what you just stated, do you really think "Christianity" fills these gaps? Unlikely....?

"Okay, I believe in a higher power(s) now...."

Since this definition of science is not adequate, please provide one that is and be prepared to be able to justify it; if necessary.

I don't feel I needed to. And I would like to stay on topic. But I'll give you a hint, just to appease your sensibilities. Is everything in evolutionary theory observable? Were we around to test and confirm 1 million years ago? Have we been inside a black hole, in space, to observe it's true environment?

Obviously; I don’t think it has been. I do not find any persuasive arguments that have shown the questions to no longer be required.

Wow. Okay??? You then seem to be presented with the rare and unique opportunity to challenge science. Round up your best questions, and present these questions to a relevant scientist, for which you feel is either ignoring your requests, or is close minded. Please let me know what happens?

Can you almost smell the Nobel prize?

Unfortunately, you are completely mistaken. You are not neutral at all. If you were neutral on the subject you would say that I could be right, the universe may have a beginning or the majority scientific option could be right and we just don’t know either way yet. That is a neutral position. Your position is that the majority scientific opinion is right; which is definitely not a neutral position.

I thought I did say that. You could be. And you could be wrong And yet, again.... If it is eternal, looks to be relative game-over for creationism assertions. If it is finite, nothing changes.

So; how do you know that the majority scientific opinion is the correct opinion to follow?

Another one of those 'leading questions' which tries to lump everything into the same category... In a likely attempt to demonstrate we ALL use faith.

Again, I go with probabilities. Where the 'universe' is concerned, I literally take no positive position, either way. But you do. And I'll be anxiously awaiting the transcript/dialogue exchange, from an expert in the field

As stated, all the models that currently work have a Big Bang with time beginning at the Big Bang. No other model that works has been found, including the Carroll Chen model which even Sean Carroll himself admits does not work. All models with eternal time fail and I am not surprised by this.

More blank assertions... Shocker.... Please adhere to post #340, please....

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

Okay, I'm exhausted. I've exchanged with you, on several posts now. You clearly are not going to comport with the bottom of post #340, in the slightest. You had your chance, you blew it. I think I'm done now. I should have followed suite with @HitchSlap , way-back-when.

You are presenting an argument from incredulity, and nothing more.

Peace out