Was life inevitable?

[Mark Quayle]

Couldn't we say a Creator could be falsified if it turns out that either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe?

Yes, or at least, "Creator" as defined by those definitions.

 

[Chriliman]

No, because you couldn't show that God was not behind that as well. That's what unfalsifiable means. Nothing that science has discovered or in principle ever could discover can disprove the existence of God.

Okay, so then all other theories about the origins of the universe are also unfalsifiable, assuming they're eternal in some way?

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, so then all other theories about the origins of the universe are also unfalsifiable, assuming they're eternal in some way?

No. Scientific theories about the origin of the universe only make testable, falsifiable claims about it. That is why we identify them as scientific theories.

 

[Chriliman]

No. Scientific theories about the origin of the universe only make testable, falsifiable claims about it. That is why we identify them as scientific theories.

Okay, so science can't ever get at the truth of origins then since it relies on testable, falsifiable claims?

Edit: Sorry, I realize you kind of already said this earlier.

 

[Speedwell]

Okay, so science can't ever get at the truth of origins then since it relies on testable, falsifiable claims?

What do you mean by the "truth of origins?"

 

[Chriliman]

What do you mean by the "truth of origins?"

I mean whatever it is that actually caused the universe(assuming the universe itself is not eternal)

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nonsense. Think of all the the art and music you would lose out on because you have abandoned the unfalsifiable idea of beauty.

Beauty is a human perception. It is verifiable (falsifiable) that humans have perceptions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then why does science use math and logic? Science uses good sense.

Math or logic propositions are falsifiable.

 

[Speedwell]

I mean whatever it is that actually caused the universe(assuming the universe itself is not eternal)

If by "universe" you mean the space-time manifold in which we currently find ourselves, then science may indeed discover that some other material entity brought it about in some way, or that the universe as we know it is part of an even larger "universe." But that would not rule out God's authorship.

 

[Chriliman]

If by "universe" you mean the space-time manifold in which we currently find ourselves, then science may indeed discover that some other material entity brought it about in some way, or that the universe as we know it is part of an even larger "universe." But that would not rule out God's authorship.

Right, so essentially science can't determine anything about something that's eternal(has no material cause), whether that be God, or eternal multiverse or singularity or whatever.

 

[Speedwell]

Right, so essentially science can't determine anything about something that's eternal(has no material cause), whether that be God, or eternal multiverse or singularity or whatever.

"Eternal" is not a falsifiable claim, so no scientific propositions will contain it. In metaphysics, "eternal" is not the same thing as "without material cause."

But I have the sense that we are not getting to the heart of the matter which concerns you with these questions.

 

[Chriliman]

"Eternal" is not a falsifiable claim, so no scientific propositions will contain it.

Can you think of a first cause that wouldn't itself be eternal(no beginning)? If not, wouldn't this then mean science can't determine anything about it, since it's eternal and unfalsifiable? It's okay to agree, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you or anything.

But I have the sense that we are not getting to the heart of the matter which concerns you with these questions.

Honestly, just trying to line up my understanding with yours.

 

[mark kennedy]

It looks like a circular argument that begs the question - if Creation is axiomatic, everything must ipso-facto be evidence for Creation.

If this is claimed not to be the case, it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation, and/or how a claim of Creation could, in principle, be falsified (i.e. criteria of falsification).

Creation is essential doctrine, a non-negotiable fact based on the revelation of the Old Testament, confirmed in the witness of the New Testament. It's in the opening lines of Genesis, the Nicene Creed, the Sabbath commemorates creation and the closing pages of Revelations has this promise:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Rev. 21:1)
​

So sure it's important, verifiable or falsifiable depending on you convictions regarding the reliability of Scripture as revelation and history. If your looking for a null hypothesis for creation you really aren't going to get something that is going to translate into empirical testing. The limited epistemology of science is an examination of natural phenomenon exclusively, while theological principles are predicated on the transcendent nature of both natural revelation and the special revelation of Scripture (Rom. 1:18-20).

By the way, Darwin had a null hypothesis for his theory of natural selection:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Charles Darwin is also quite clear that the premise of natural selection is based on exclusively naturalistic causation as opposed to a miraculous creation:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface 3rd edition)
​

Let's not confuse the issue pretending Darwinism was ever based on a conclusion, it's always been a a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Speedwell]

Creation is essential doctrine, a non-negotiable fact based on the revelation of the Old Testament, confirmed in the witness of the New Testament. It's in the opening lines of Genesis, the Nicene Creed, the Sabbath commemorates creation and the closing pages of Revelations has this promise:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. (Rev. 21:1)
​

So sure it's important, verifiable or falsifiable depending on you convictions regarding the reliability of Scripture as revelation and history. If your looking for a null hypothesis for creation you really aren't going to get something that is going to translate into empirical testing. The limited epistemology of science is an examination of natural phenomenon exclusively, while theological principles are predicated on the transcendent nature of both natural revelation and the special revelation of Scripture (Rom. 1:18-20).

By the way, Darwin had a null hypothesis for his theory of natural selection:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.” (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Charles Darwin is also quite clear that the premise of natural selection is based on exclusively naturalistic causation as opposed to a miraculous creation:

In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species. Preface 3rd edition)
​

Let's not confuse the issue pretending Darwinism was ever based on a conclusion, it's always been a a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means.

Have a nice day
Mark

Which does not rule out divine authorship of our being. It only excludes miraculous intervention in natural processes--not the same thing at all. No matter how how hard you try, you can never make that statement of Darwin's into an endorsement of metaphysical naturalism.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not all that is believable and useful is falsifiable.

True. So?

 

[Speedwell]

Can you think of a first cause that wouldn't itself be eternal(no beginning)? If not, wouldn't this then mean science can't determine anything about it, since it's eternal and unfalsifiable? It's okay to agree, I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you or anything.



Honestly, just trying to line up my understanding with yours.

You seem to believe that if science reaches far enough back in time it will discover a point at which natural causality began to work, sparked off by some other kind of cause. If that is not correct, I apologize. But there is no need for temporal priority. It is possible to imagine, for instance, a universe created by God and co-eternal with Him.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Couldn't we say a Creator could be falsified if it turns out that either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe?

That's really up to those who believe in a Creator to decide. It's not an issue for those that don't believe.

But yes, demonstrating that the universe wasn't the result of a Creator would falsify a Creator; but the real question is what, if anything, would be accepted as incontrovertible evidence of that, i.e. that "either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe"?

 

[Chriliman]

That's really up to those who believe in a Creator to decide. It's not an issue for those that don't believe.

But yes, demonstrating that the universe wasn't the result of a Creator would falsify a Creator; but the real question is what, if anything, would be accepted as incontrovertible evidence of that, i.e. that "either literally nothing or some eternal cause that isn't God caused the universe"?

It should be an issue for anyone who cares to possibly know about origins.
But that’s where falsifiability becomes impossible because whatever the first cause is would necessarily be eternal(have no beginning) and therefore unfalsifiable. Thankfully falsifiability isn’t necessarily required in order to know something.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It should be an issue for anyone who cares to possibly know about origins.
But that’s where falsifiability becomes impossible because whatever the first cause is would necessarily be eternal(have no beginning) and therefore unfalsifiable. Thankfully falsifiability isn’t necessarily required in order to know something.

That's why I gave the alternative, "it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation".

 

[Chriliman]

That's why I gave the alternative, "it is reasonable to ask for some justification such as the criteria for judging what is evidence for Creation".

Well if we’re saying the entire universe is creation then it would be unreasonable to think we could find an uncreated thing within it. However, I understand you don’t hold to that position which is why you expect to find something uncreated.