Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

[MindTrap028]

I think so. I didn't mention oceans nor many land areas that are unable to sustain humans

Sorry, I retract that line of argument.
Would you mind running your point by me again?

This makes no sense? How is a world that is "made for humans" = to a world where humans can defy normal physical laws, or IOW, do pretty much anything (defy gravity/"climb up walls")?

Sorry that may have had a wrong understanding of your point wrapped up into it.
I'll retract it for now, and let you explain your point again.

However, this is only true cause God picked those particular values right? God could have made gravity (or anything else) with different values when He created the universe and that % of matter you refer to wouldn't matter at all. So things we will never be able to see would not matter at all in this "painting". You are trying to play both sides of the court:
"God can do anything, but must work in the lines of our understanding of physical law type of thinking when God made the laws".
IOW, God could have made the universe work with 90% more matter or 90% less and we would still be here. Just change the laws of physics, after all, it is His, and His choice alone what the values are, right?

Right but the form of the argument wouldn't change. Your arguing if reality were different kind of thing.
Certainly if reality was different things would have been different.
However the answer to your question was simple. It doesn't have to have theological implications added to be sufficient.. yes?

However, this is only true cause God picked those particular values right? God could have made gravity (or anything else) with different values when He created the universe and that % of matter you refer to wouldn't matter at all. So things we will never be able to see would not matter at all in this "painting". You are trying to play both sides of the court:
"God can do anything, but must work in the lines of our understanding of physical law type of thinking when God made the laws".
IOW, God could have made the universe work with 90% more matter or 90% less and we would still be here. Just change the laws of physics, after all, it is His, and His choice alone what the values are, right?

Well, I certainly have no idea what hidden consequences could be the result of tweaking the fundamental forces of nature. if they are all logically possible, or whatever.
But again, the question of why so much space, and the answer was to have a view.
the follow up was why so much we can't see, and the answer is given the current state of the universe that is what it takes for it to exist.

Maybe if things were different it would require less.. I really don't know and plead ignorance. But I think the questions were answered pretty reasonable and I think you are kinda there too.
So, moving on?

[Squatch347]

Me:
"Perhaps, and yet here we are and no one has an answer yet that isn't just plain fantastic."

You:
"Define fantastic in a measurable sense. I think when we use subjective discriptors of that nature we end up just enshringing out initial conclusions against the argument. Perhaps all the answers are "fantastic" it doesn't mean that one of them isn't the most likely."

I don't understand your objection at all??

Hmm, ok. Let me try to reframe it a bit.

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.” My point is that that is a very loaded term. If I were to tell someone in the 1880s that man would use heavier than air aircraft in 20 years he would call that fantastic (it was largely thought to be physically impossible at the time).

When you say it is “fantastic” you are describing your reaction to the claim, not the claim itself. It is how you perceive its credibility, not how the claim has been defended or the totality of the evidence. That is the crux of my point. You can’t use your reaction to a claim as a basis for dismissing it. You have to use something more objective. Is the claim objectively fantastic? Can you define what that would even mean?

Your point was your belief is the most likely to be true out of the bunch (I wonder that we are missing some part of the puzzle still)....

Not quite. I said of the three possible explanations, design has the most warrant as a valid explanation. That isn’t about my belief or about how I personally accept the explanation. Warrant is about the amount of support a claim has for and against it.

What if I told you I was God and was asking these questions just so you would articulate the answers, because a particular person reading would use this information to go on and do great works? What would you think of this claim?

Given that I have no evidence to support or reject your claim I would be agnostic on it.

Your analogy started with some one blissfully unaware of gov't.

Hmm, I’m not sure where you got that. If I ask someone “Can the federal government levy an income tax?” I’m obviously assuming they at least know there is a federal government right?

I think this seems an odd manner of objecting. The principle doesn’t seem that controversial. Let me use the other analogies I offerred:

It is illegal to murder, even if we as a judicial system have not fully explored every single nuance of that criminal code through common law.

I don’t know the full scope of injuries that would result from me hitting the ground, but I know it is an undesirable thing that my parachute doesn’t open.

Likewise, I don’t know the full state and motion of all matter in the universe, but I can state that the laws of thermodynamics apply.

Because gravity is not behaving like we expect

Exactly! The way we expect because we have a very validated understanding of the underlying laws. And that understanding of those laws still allows us to make predictions unrelated to dark matter like sending sattellites.

And yet it is off by how much when we try to measure the mass of the universe?

We don’t have any evidence that it is off at all. And it is exactly the opposite conclusion that physicists are operating under. Rather than assume relativity is wrong, they assume they can’t measure all the matter in the universe.

it seems a stretch to say the earth is made for humans when we can't live in most the environments.

When you say “made for humans” what do you mean? You seem to be implying that it means “made for humans to survive” since your measurement is whether it is conducive to life. Why do you think that is the correct metric here? IE why would the prevalence of habitats that are beneficial for humans be the sole metric God is using?

It's possible that a pair porcupines are nesting in my shorts and causing me an irritation, so?

Well if we agree it is possible, it doesn’t make very much sense to rule it out as impossible. That is how I interpreted your previous response and the one before, that we could, at least tacitly, dismiss this option because it was incoherent. Since that doesn’t seem to be the case, I’m not sure that objection holds.

No worries However, I don't think I have ever made that claim? Perhaps I was meant something like:
when I hear talk about the universe expanding, I also hear that it isn't expanding into anything else. IOW, there is no other space the universe is taking up as it expands.

Running back through the thread, I think what you said was:

4) God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).

Which I am under the impression we talked about earlier and which died out.

So is there any reason that the could not be another universe (manifold thingy) with "time" that is separate from ours?

As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe.

LOL! I'll give you 1/2 point However, they don't deny the effect, only the definition of the source. They still believe "something" holds their feet on the ground!

I’m going to appeal for full credit here :-). You said that gravity was undeniable, they don’t believe in gravity at all. It isn’t a force, isn’t an effect, isn’t a cause. There is no force (I can’t believe I’m typing this) that keeps you on the ground. That is your natural place due to density only.

Look, I don’t blame you for not reading that page, it is absolutely crazy, but if you scroll down to around the middle you’ll see he actually denies the effect. Start reading at “point’ C through F and you’ll see that he is arguing that the “effect” of things falling is your misperception because you’ve been lied to (not really paraphrasing). There isn’t anything to explain because a)density and b)everything else is a lie. (ie no spacecraft for example)

I’m not arguing he is reliable, or even really coherent. I’m arguing he denies that there is anything to be explained at all.

Certainly he is a good example of the kind of people I was referencing earlier, that they are willing to deny anything, no matter how obvious.

How is a being with no beginning of existence and no end not an actual infinity?

Across what dimensional set is He an actual infinity in this scenario? IE the natural numbers are an actual infinity across the dimension of cardinality of that set. What is the measure you are using?

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

[Belthazor]

Sorry, I retract that line of argument.
Would you mind running your point by me again?

No worries, I had said:
"If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).
Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility
The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?"

So the universe is so big we can't "see" all of it. It is vast beyond human comprehension. As far as we know, the nearly all of it hostile to human life. Out of that seemingly near infinity of space, there is Earth. Such a small spec of dust in relation to the universe, it is equally beyond human comprehension. Now Earth can only support human life in a small percentage of it's area.
My thought was human life if not welcome almost everywhere that we are aware of to an extreme (Squatch, please give us the math calculations of that relationship. Also Squatch, I am going to miss your input for the next few weeks till you return, safe travels sir!!!)
It just seems to run counter to "the Heaven's and Earth were made for man", or maybe I am not getting what "made for "means in this context?

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 PM ----------

Right but the form of the argument wouldn't change. Your arguing if reality were different kind of thing.
Certainly if reality was different things would have been different.
However the answer to your question was simple. It doesn't have to have theological implications added to be sufficient.. yes?

I don't think I understand?

I mean, for instance, in our current universe, an object needs mass to have gravity. God could have made a universe that kept your feet on Earth without mass, just as easily as He can break the current laws to perform miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if it fallowed the normal laws we observe would it? So those laws get suspended at God's will for miracles, I assume those same laws are not immutable in any other way God chooses....
(Squatch now doing a big eye roll and quiver at the lack of precision in that statement

---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

Well, I certainly have no idea what hidden consequences could be the result of tweaking the fundamental forces of nature. if they are all logically possible, or whatever.

May I respectfully submit that according to your world view that you do, in fact know!
The ONLY consequences would be of God's choosing.
I see absolutely no other alternative?

[MindTrap028]

No worries, I had said:
"If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).
Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility
The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?"

So the universe is so big we can't "see" all of it. It is vast beyond human comprehension. As far as we know, the nearly all of it hostile to human life. Out of that seemingly near infinity of space, there is Earth. Such a small spec of dust in relation to the universe, it is equally beyond human comprehension. Now Earth can only support human life in a small percentage of it's area.
My thought was human life if not welcome almost everywhere that we are aware of to an extreme (Squatch, please give us the math calculations of that relationship. Also Squatch, I am going to miss your input for the next few weeks till you return, safe travels sir!!!)
It just seems to run counter to "the Heaven's and Earth were made for man", or maybe I am not getting what "made for "means in this context?

yea, I see where I got the line I followed. You seem to imply the oceans for sure, and of course you mentioned separately the areas of land that man can't inhabit.. which I assume are like the sub zero parts. (not the Mortal Kombat kind). ..
My original line was to point out that the earth hasn't always been that way. Especially from a position which posits an "garden of Eden" when the earth truly was made for man, but then was spoiled. With things like a flood that would create vast oceans where man once could have lived.. which IMO negates your whole point.
That however has a lot of Christian assumptions, but if you are questioning the Christian God, then I think that is going to be inherent to the answer regardless.
So, given the above, I don't see the power of your objection in regards to the earth and man living on it.

I think my "room with a view" has some explanatory power over this objection as well.

I don't think I understand?

I mean, for instance, in our current universe, an object needs mass to have gravity. God could have made a universe that kept your feet on Earth without mass, just as easily as He can break the current laws to perform miracles. It wouldn't be a miracle if it fallowed the normal laws we observe would it? So those laws get suspended at God's will for miracles, I assume those same laws are not immutable in any other way God chooses....

A world without rules may be incompatible with a God of order. So while God may suspend.. say gravity for Jesus to walk on water, it doesn't follow that then God doesn't "need" a rule to govern mans general activity. Especially where the world is designed to convey spiritual messages and truth. Such as the existence of God. If we lived in what appeared to be a lawless universe (because god was working miracle after miracle in random ways) then such a world may make it impossible to see God in it. If we say God acted consistently, then we would just be back to another kind of law.

May I respectfully submit that according to your world view that you do, in fact know!
The ONLY consequences would be of God's choosing.
I see absolutely no other alternative?

Well, that is a fair point. However I don't hold that God can do logically impossible things, so certain aspects that are possible, wouldn't necessarily be 'com-possible" or possible at the same time.
Like the example above regarding Laws vs lawlessness and finding God.

[Belthazor]

yea, I see where I got the line I followed. You seem to imply the oceans for sure, and of course you mentioned separately the areas of land that man can't inhabit.. which I assume are like the sub zero parts. (not the Mortal Kombat kind). ..
My original line was to point out that the earth hasn't always been that way.

I thought I addressed this concern in post #538:
"I made no such assumption. The Earth is a dynamic planet in a state of constant change to be sure, and seemingly has been since it formed. If it was made for humans I would presume they would be capable adapting to these changes."

But allow me another stab at it if my previous response was not sufficient.

Earth is very dynamic. During ice ages our coastlines were hundreds of miles from where they are now and the glaciers from the N pole extended clear to Texas. In between ice ages, when a lot of the ice is melted, huge areas would be flooded that had been dry ground. New islands form in the ocean from volcanic activity. Continental drift shapes weather as well as landscape. When N & S America didn't not "touch", Africa was a dense jungle.

God, knowing this would be the case, would create humans with the ability to adapt to and live in a majority of these conditions if the Earth were made for man. After all He did it for tardigrades. They can live in ice. Indeed, they live in almost all areas of Earth. Humans can't even go up very high and still live. Climb Mt Everest and your brain will swell from lack of oxygen.

---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

Especially from a position which posits an "garden of Eden" when the earth truly was made for man, but then was spoiled.

Do the majority of Christians believe Eden was here on Earth?
Feel free to decline, but what denomination are you?
I just don't want to argue against things you do not believe and waste your time.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:49 PM ----------

I think my "room with a view" has some explanatory power over this objection as well.

Again, I actually like this response
It does fall in line if you are correct!

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:54 PM ----------

A world without rules may be incompatible with a God of order. So while God may suspend.. say gravity for Jesus to walk on water, it doesn't follow that then God doesn't "need" a rule to govern mans general activity.

I don't believe I have suggested otherwise. My point is, God makes the rules, and can do so at His discretion. The only reason we need X mass for the universe to exist in it's current form is solely by god's pleasure. He could made it possible with more or less mass if He so chose and we wouldn't know the difference....

---------- Post added at 06:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:01 PM ----------

Well, that is a fair point. However I don't hold that God can do logically impossible things, so certain aspects that are possible, wouldn't necessarily be 'com-possible" or possible at the same time.
Like the example above regarding Laws vs lawlessness and finding God.

Again, I don't believe I have suggested otherwise (at least in our current conversation).

Look, lightning could strike every time you say the word/phrase "X", if God wanted it that way. Nothing illogical/impossible about that, that I can see. Our understanding of physics would be modified to allow for verbal input.
Indeed, incantations, phrases, particular groupings of words, seem to come up commonly in religions as particularly important!

[futureboy]

You haven't offered critiques or rebuttals of the arguments offerred. That isn't an ad hom to point out, simply a fact.

Your statement was an ad hom expression of your opinion about my ability to respond to the arguments, not a statement of the fact that I was not offering critiques or rebuttals. Again, "I get that you're saying these because you've run into a limit in your ability to respond", is nothing like the statement "you're not offering critiques or rebuttals". I appreciate your statement of regret that it came across as an ad hom, but trying to make it seem as though you weren't saying what you said is quite dishonest and bad form.

Until you engage with the premises and structure of the argument, this isn't a rebuttal.

The arguments don't even warrant a rebuttal since they don't support your Xtian theistic claims.

Except...you haven't gotten that far in the argument yet, I'm happy to detail the ramifications of the conclusions of these arguments, but it is a lot clearer of an explanation if you engage with the premises.

Again, arguments which don't necessarily support your theistic beliefs will be disregarded.

It would seem intuitively obvious that it means, in this context, that something is not contained within our physical and temporal dimensions.

Existence is by definition necessarily temporal. It makes no sense to say that something exists for 0 seconds.

For example, the physical constants of our universe are not generally held by physicists to be bound to our universe. They aren’t determined by it, nor governed within it.

The physical constants of our universe are our conceptualizations of how we've observed our universe to function. They do not exist in any way like you're attempting to use the term existence here in support of something actually existing outside of our reality.

And point 2 was a red herring, you keep claiming that there is a material difference that precludes all examples from counting, but you haven’t detailed what that difference is and why it matters.

I've repeatedly explained the difference. Your examples are of changes in existing matter within an existing universe. The claim in KCA is precisely not that. You are equivocating creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. KCA requires the latter, while we only have examples of the former.

And, remember we aren’t talking about matter/energy changing.

Again, that's all we have examples of, and they don't serve as support for the claims of the KCA.

By not addressing either set of questions and not presented valid support for your claims

I'm not making any claims, I'm simply pointing out the issues with your arguments, which are:
1. They don't support theism.
2. KCA's premises aren't demonstrated.
3. Fine Tuning sneaks in a designer as well as a purpose, both of which need to be demonstrated.

So you are unwilling to engage arguments presented that contradict your OP?

No, I believe I clearly expressed myself when I said that arguments which don't support your theistic claims will be disregarded.

I don't recall having made any such claim. Can you point it out?

FB #406: Were these (KCA, FT, Moral) the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?
S #418: They were not.

This is a clear statement that the arguments you're presenting here are not the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place. Or, in other words, you are not presenting the original reasons you began to believe as your rational justification for believing.

FB #424: Then why not present those reasons as your rational justification for believing in the Xtian deity?
S #494: Who says I'm not?
FB #495: You do.

Again, after you presented the KCA, FT, Moral arguments, I asked you if these were the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place, to which you answered that, No, "they were not". Therefore, with these arguments, you aren't presenting the arguments which convinced you in the first place, according to your own admission. So I again point out that you are not presenting the original arguments which originally convinced you to believe, and you already agreed that this is the case. The question remains: why not present the arguments which convinced you in the first place? What's wrong with those? Do you think that a Xtian theist, who continues to believe based on similar arguments as those which convinced you in the first place, and who hasn't reached the same position as you of basing their Xtian beliefs on these new arguments, is less rationally justified in their belief than you are?
What were those arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place?

You are asking for me to present evidence to eliminate other forms of theism which seems like an entirely different argument, but one we can get to later.

No, it isn't an entirely different argument. For an argument to support your specific Xtian theism, it must necessarily exclude all other conflicting theistic claims/beliefs.

Since it is a build-on the argument we are currently discussing, we have to resolve that before moving on.

Again, if you want to present arguments in support of Xtian theism, then by all means, do so. "Build-on arguments" which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion which exclusively supports Xtian theism will be disregarded. If you base your rational justification on KCA, FT, and Morality plus further arguments, then you should be making an argument which contains all the premises of the KCA as well as the premises which lead you to your specific Xtian theism. Or simply start your full argument with the conclusion of any one of those arguments as the first premise follow-ed by the premises from the arguments which lead to Xtian theism, so that we can see whether your chain of logic is even valid. It's not sound, but it might just be valid.

If you'd like to get to the next step in the arguments, I'm happy to as well, but you'll need to accept these premises first.

This is a ridiculous demand, and not even one you adhered to when you were convinced of Xtian theism, by your own admission. Again, you're either presenting rational justification for your specific theistic beliefs, or you're not. So far, you're not.

That is one heck of an intellectual leap, and one heck of an invalid inference.

No, it's simple logic.
"this thread isn't about how I came to belief, it is about whether theistic belief is rational"
Again, if this thread is about whether your Xtian belief is rational, but does not include the reasons you came to the belief, then by definition, the reasons you came to the belief are not the reasons why your Xtian belief is rational.

I've already asked numerous questions offering you the chance to clarify this which you have avoided answering.
So I ask you again:
So the initial reasons for how you cam to belief were not rational, and your initial belief was not rationally justified?
Are you claiming that the arguments which led you to believe in the first place are rational? If so, then the question remains: Why not present them here?
By not presenting them here, does that mean you think they aren't such strong rational justification as compared to the arguments you have presented (KCA, FT, Moral)?
Did you only have rational justification for your belief in the Xtian deity once you were met with the three arguments you have listed here?

Those are inferences from the option, not premises supporting the option. You are arguing what you think is the next step in the argument rather than what the text actuall says.
There are really only two options regarding this premise.
1) Add a fourth category. Do you have one?
2) Remove a category, which is what seems to be what you are implying here. I'm happy to entertain an argument to that effect, but you'd need to explain why your interpretation (presumabely it is either due to necessity or chance) is MECE (Mutualy Exclusive, Completly Exhaustive). Specifially, you need to show why those two categories cover all possible explanations.

There's just so much wrong with your reasoning here. But the main issue is that you seem to think that by simply including the design option in the argument, this fulfills the requirements for it to even be considered as an option, and anyone who disputes that must support why it could only be the other two options. This is entirely backwards.

In order to include it as an option, you need to demonstrate that it actually is an option instead of merely asserting it. That's why I pointed out the inherent claims included with the design option: designed implies a purpose and an entity, neither of which we have support that they're even possible.

So far, the only valid options we have are Chance, Necessity, and We Don't Know.

Your inference to design is based on an incorrect interpretation of the observed phenomena, as the claimed appearance of design doesn't support that design is even actually possible.

I get that you are claiming that but not only have several members here shown you to be wrong. And not only have you offered no evidence to support your claim.

As I've already explained, the statement "You can count to infinity if you count an infinite number of times." is intended only to point out the absurdity of any claims which include both the concept of counting (getting to something) and the concept of infinity. *Hint, you were the one who first made an absurd claim about counting to infinity in post #422.

---------- Post added at 10:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

Over to you.

I'm still working on it - sorry for the wait!

[futureboy]

2) It would be a time when the Anointed One was killed (verse 26).

Who is "the Anointed One"?

Again, I'll ask you to clearly state the text of the passage together with what it's supposed to have predicted has happened.

So far, all you've offered is interpretations of the text, which aren't specific enough to warrant their consideration as actual predictions.

Nice assertion. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Provide your proof.

Again, if you have many people working towards something, and someone predicts that it will happen, the prediction isn't miraculous. It's like me saying that ordering a meal at a restaurant and then it later arrives just as I foretold it is a miraculous prophecy.

Show me some original ancient manuscripts (other than something carved in stone) from the time frame that has survived decay. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls containing many OT books are not originals. Not many originals survive. Will you deny every historical document from this time frame that is not an original document? Is that REASONABLE?

This in no way addresses my statement.

I am not disputing that the NT books were not put together into one testament, into the NT (canonized), after A.D. 70. I am disputing that even one of them was written after A.D. 70. Give me your documented evidence that even one was.

No, you have it backwards. Again, the state of evidence is that we have no originals, only copies of copies, the earliest of which are dated to after 100 CE. Based on these facts, we have no justification for making any claims about the documents' authorship at any time prior to the earliest existing copies. For someone to claim authorship prior to the earliest copies, they need to support that claim. What support do you have for the claim that any of the books were authored at any time prior to 100 CE, and, more importantly, what support do you have that these earliest copies even match the originals?

With the amount of manuscripts we have available it is reasonable to believe we have accurate copies.

Right, the manuscripts that are copies of those early copies. Again, how do you know that the first copies are actually verbatim matches of the originals?

You have one massive assumption that you have invested a lot of thought and philosophy into, that the prophecies are written AFTER the fact.

One is perfectly justified in being skeptical of any predictions for which the earliest existing texts are from after the event happened.
For predictions which are confirmed to have been made prior to the event happening, they'd have to meet the aforementioned requirements: they can't be vague, and they can't have a high probability of happening. So far, your examples all fail for one or both reasons.

It has been my witness that almost every atheist I have discussed the subject with always brushed the evidence of prophecy off without an in-depth argument over it. It's all allegation and inference with either no fact behind the charges, no reasonableness, or use of liberal scholars centuries removed from the times.

Again, you have it backwards. You're the one making the claim that these are actually miraculous predictions. No wonder you've had similar experiences before.

Is it reasonable to believe these ancient artifacts (biblical manuscripts) bear witness to the reliability of the Bible (66 books; 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 NT books) we read today? Show me it is not, and document your case.

Tell me, did you perform an in-depth study of biblical predictions prior to being convinced of the truth of Xtian theism?

If there were only one or two accounts, they would be very questionable, but the over 5,000 different manuscripts from different regions and different times show that the translations are reliable. Then there are over 24,000 partial manuscripts to work with, besides. There are hundreds of early church fathers that contain citations or quotes in their writings from almost every passage in the NT and many from the OT.

Again, none of this necessarily demonstrates that what you read now is actually what was originally written.

You would have to understand the essence of the OT.

And this is why it fails as a valid prediction. Some so vague that it requires pages and pages of interpretation and reference to other passages which themselves require interpretation could never be considered an actual prediction. Islamic doctrine has its own fulfilled prophecies which are likewise attested to by interpretations and references to other passages' interpretations. Why are you not a Muslim?

So, again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that these prophecies (predictions) were not written before the fact/event, but after, since you claim there is no facts, no evidence.

Backwards, again. Really, this penchant of yours to attempt to shirk the burden of proof is becoming quite tedious.

Daniel 9:24-27 is very specific. The timeframe is 490 heptads, and six specific conditions relevant to the Mosaic Covenant have to be met before or during the fall of Jerusalem and the city. Also, the Messiah or Anointed One would be killed before the fall of the city and temple. It would be a time of wars and the abomination of desolation would result. These and many other items are specific.

Unfortunately, there are a number of issues with how Xtians interpret Daniel 9:24-27 which are based mostly on changes to the passage which happened over time and translation. One big difference is the capitalization of Messiah, Prince, and Anointed One, which doesn't exist in the original Hebrew version. This capitalization is an attempt by Xtian translators to establish a connection with Jesus, but when looking at translations from the original Hebrew, the text is in no way sufficiently specific enough to warrant the claim that Jesus is being referred to.

Zechariah 12:1-10 is specific. It even describes One who will be pierced for the transgressions of Israel. It gives detail of the mourning and it gives details of when (the last days) which the NT prophets/writers/Jesus speak of as during that generation. All these prophecies go hand-in-hand.

And Jews have a different interpretation. Who to believe?

There are many, many more passages I can refer to, such as Isaiah 2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 53, Isaiah 65-66, Jeremiah 31, Micah 4, many Psalms, Deuteronomy 28, as examples.

Feel free to do so, again, clearly stating the text of the passage together with what it's supposed to have predicted has happened.

In answering the statements and questions below it has become apparent the same themes are repeatedly evident, and one theme is how you get from an "is" or the descriptive, to an "ought" or prescriptive.

The way in which secular morality gets to the "ought" is by recognising that we're stuck on this planet together and need to find a way to co-exist which minimizes unnecessary suffering and maximized benefit. Once we agree that our well-being is in our best interests, it's no great leap to get to an "ought" in any situation.

Whose current understanding?

The consensus understanding of the experts in the field.

I don't share such a view. What about me and those who think like I do? My views are ridiculed, suppressed and subverted by the current understanding to push that materialistic narrative.

Not just your views, but any views which are asserted without having first met their burden of proof. That's just how the cookie crumbles, I'm afraid. After years and years of theists continuing to make assertions without meeting that burden, it's little wonder that some ridicule those assertions.

The point; that your origin (its beginnings) are something that cannot be traced to anything that makes sense once you hold to naturalistic beginnings, yet despite this, you continue to suggest and find sense from such beginnings.

I'm sorry if the naturalistic explanations of our origins don't make sense to you, but this is not a refutation of them. If you're referring to "sense" as in "meaning", then I've already answered this: We determine our own meaning.

What I traced my origins to can logically make sense because I trace them to a personal, intelligent, caring ultimate being

This is nothing more than the assertion that just because you have an explanation which makes sense to you means it's the actual explanation. Unfortunately, logic and reason don't work that way. Further, we tend to explain things by referencing other things which we already understand and have support for, so any attempt to explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery is not an explanation. Your explanation fails because of this.

not some glob of matter plus energy over time devoid of all reason that supposedly is the origin of us

If you're referring to "reason" as in "the cause", then we have a good idea of the cause. If you mean "reason" as in "meaning" again, then this has already been addressed.

What you assume is that such an origin can produce what you witness.

Nobody assumes that.

The difference between the two worldviews is that my worldview can make sense of what I observe, yours cannot (how do you get life and senses from inorganic chemicals mixing?).

Again, claiming that you can make sense of something is not a demonstration that what you assert is the actual explanation.
I could just as easily make sense of what we observe by claiming that magical universe-farting pixies created the universe, and then magical life-sneezing fairies created all life. This makes sense of what we observe, therefore, it's a valid explanation.

If the atheist/secular/materialistic worldview does not fully understand how things happen, then that worldview could be mistaken in its views of the universe.

Whether it "could be mistaken" is not a demonstration that it is mistaken. Since the current models have proven themselves to be reliable and provide us with predictive capabilities, we can be fairly certain that they are accurate.

You and anyone else has every right to attempt to disprove those models, which their creators and proponents are constantly trying to do themselves, incidentally. But what you miss yet again is that even if you disproved every single one of the naturalistic models, you would not have moved one step closer to demonstrating your Xtian theism.

You do not know; you prefer to believe what you do.

Well, to be clear, it might be said that nobody truly "knows" anything, really - depending on how far you want to go with defining "knowledge". All we have is reasonable certainty of most things which we claim to "know".

How life originates from non-life has never been demonstrated in the real world, just theorized as possible.

And nobody has ever claimed to have an explanation for how life originated from non-life. You need to be careful not to confuse abiogenesis with evolution. We can assume it's possible for life to come from non-life because we know that life exists, and we're fairly sure that it doesn't exist in most of the rest of the universe. So as far as life originating from non-life being possible, this isn't an issue. How it happened is something we don't know and may never know.

One support is the reasonableness of mindful being producing other mindful beings.

This is in no way support that, when humans determine reasonableness of proposition, there is a mind behind it. What does that even mean, "a mind behind it"?

What you need for your assertion is oodles and oodles of time, plus matter and energy without intent.

Both of which we have.

Thus, Chance randomly somehow produces what is necessary. Does that make sense to you? If so, then explain how so I can dispute it. Some things work in theory yet are impossible to demonstrate in real life, such as arriving at the present from an infinity.

Again, there are some things we don't know for certain and which we may never know. This is no way lends credibility to any Xtian claims.

You assume and speculate based on the THOUGHTS of other subjective, relative, limited human beings. Why should I believe them (a blind speculative faith since no human being was there to witness origins nor witnesses life from non-life happening today)? Confirmational bias verifies what a person wants to see.

Your anti-science bias is quite clear here. It is unfortunate that this bias has prevented you from experiencing the world of knowledge offered to us through science.

You derive meaning from the meaningless.

Yes, we derive meaning from our own understanding of reality and how we see ourselves in it, and that reality is ultimately meaningless, as you use the word. It's just reality, and we find ourselves trapped in it. It's our job to figure out what to do with ourselves.

The universe does not have meaning to it UNLESS a MEANINGFUL Being has produced that meaning.

No, the universe does not have meaning to it, period. We create our own meaning for ourselves within the universe, but that doesn't change the fact that the universe appears to not care about our existence in the least, let alone have a meaning for our existence.

The unbeliever's worldview tends to derive meaning from the meaningless. The unbeliever keeps borrowing suppositions from the Christian worldview to make sense of their worldview.

What suppositions are borrowed from the Xtian worldview? You claim this yet provide no support.

They want things to matter, live their life as if things ultimately matter, yet don't have what is necessary for it to ultimately matter.

"Ultimately matter" is something which has not been claimed nor supported. The only meaning is the one we create for ourselves, and the only things which matter are the ones we say matter. You can claim that things ultimately matter until you're blue in the face, but it's nonsense unless you can demonstrate it.

I'm talking about how you obtain quantitative VALUES from the qualitative (the OUGHT from the IS). You use these qualitative values all the time as if your personal opinion or that of other likeminded opinions establishes what is good or best. How does the descriptive (behaviorism), what is, become what SHOULD BE, the prescriptive?

I've offered the foundation for the "OUGHT" under secular morality. Now, how about Xtian theistic morality? Where does your "OUGHT" come from? All you can do is claim that there is a deity which has made some moral pronouncements. These are all "IS" which don't necessarily lead to any "OUGHT".

How do you get good without first KNOWING what is best?

As long as we agree to care about well-being, then the fact of reality provide what is good.

You just make it up, call it "good," but if someone makes up a different/opposite value, you dispute its rightness.

Nobody "just makes it up". Your claim that secular moral values are arbitrary is unsupported and plainly false to anyone with even the slightest idea of how it works.

How do you get best without an ultimate, fixed, unchanging standard? A relative standard is always changing, so how do you know what you believe as "good" is actually the case. It could all change tomorrow.

Again, as long as we agree to care about well-being, this is the standard. If we no longer agree to care about well-being, then the lack of a standard is the least of our problems.

What you call "good" today could be seen as evil tomorrow.

Sure, if evidence is provided showing that it doesn't actually offer well-being, then it would not be seen as good anymore.

Why is that? All I would have to do is point to abortion in your country (presuming you live in the USA) in which at one time not long ago (before Roe Vs. Wade) it was looked upon as bad, murder, and not permissible. Now it is looked upon as the woman's right to choose and that being "good."

Right, evidence has been provided which shows that the well-being of the fetus should not take priority over the well-being of the woman, and that women should have autonomy over their bodies in order to maximize well-being.

Same-sex marriage and sodomy was once thought of as evil, yet the idea has been promoted as "good" by many societies in recent years, and laws against same-sex marriage or sodom have been repealed and changed.

If something is asserted as evil for the wrong reasons, it's no wonder that, when the evidence comes around to support that it's not wrong, it's no longer considered wrong.

Slavery was once thought of as permissible, and many people thought it good to own slaves. That position is no longer seen as good.

Really? It seems that some here think that there's nothing wrong with owning people as property ... or at least owning people as labour, whatever that means.

Some countries and some people accept one view and oppose the opposite. Tyrants enslave their people by their control over them and dictate what is and will be the laws of the land. Who is right?

If we agree to care about well-being, then those who can demonstrate that their approach maximizes it are right.

How does that make it better, because you like it? You are confusing PREFERENCE with values.

No, because I'm in the best position to determine what my life's meaning should be, by definition. Preference vs. values doesn't enter into it. You asked why my individually determined meaning to my life is better for me, and I explained why. If you think otherwise, then feel free to provide an argument for that.

Why is YOUR meaning any BETTER than mine in a relative world of ideas?

Again, the meaning I determine for myself is better than the meaning someone else determines for me. The meaning you determine for yourself is better than the meaning someone else determines for you. The meaning I determine for myself is no better or worse than the meaning you determine for yourself because we're different people.

Why is your social construct BETTER than that of Hitler or Kim Jong-un? Because you LIKE it?

What makes it better is that it is demonstrably better at ensuring well-being and minimizing unnecessary suffering. It is based on facts.

When there are two opposing conventions like the view of same-sex marriage or abortion, viewed in one country as Good and Right and in another as Evil and Wrong, which convention is the correct one? In a relative world which person is to say. Logically both views cannot be true since they are contrary to each other.

Again, the position which is demonstrably better as ensuring well-being, as according to the available facts. A good example is women's right to vote, drive a car, have a job, etc., as compared between a western country and a country which doesn't uphold those rights. Are you honestly going to say that we can't in any way show that the society which upholds those rights is better at ensuring well-being? Are you honestly going to claim that the moral values behind those rights were divinely inspired by the same religion which holds women to be not equal to men according to its scripture?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism has all the ingredients of a worldview.

Nothing about the wikipedia article on atheism supports that it is a worldview. It lists the various views held by atheists, but there is no collection of view which could be called a worldview that could be applied universally to "atheism". This has been repeatedly explained to you. The only common element for all atheists is that the lack a belief in deity X. Lacking a belief in something in no way constitutes a worldview.

Once you deny God, you must explain existence by some other means.

No, one can, and most do, simply acknowledge that we don't know for sure, since this is the only rationally justified position.

You MUST sift everything through the eyes of your foundational, core, starting point.

The foundational, core, starting point for any rational skeptic should from the minimum base assumptions which are:
1. The universe/reality exists.
2. We can learn something about the universe/reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities are more useful than models without predictive capabilities.

No further assumptions are required, or allowed, in order for a foundational core starting point to be considered rational.

Instead of a Creator as the explanation, you must find another REASON for our existence

Well no, we don't actually have to find a reason for our existence in order to have a reasonable good existence. But we understand that, in order to make the most of our existence, we should try to find out as much as we can about it.

If you deny God, then a naturalistic view becomes the default

Wrong. A naturalistic view does not become the default if one denies Xtian theism. There are quite many alternatives which are not naturalistic. In any case, it's important to be clear about what one means by "naturalism". When I use the term, I'm usually referring to methodological naturalism, which is quite different from philosophical naturalism.

How do atheists answer these essential metaphysical questions? Someone who does not believe in God answers every one of them.

Not necessarily, and this goes back to your misrepresentation of atheism as a worldview. Some atheists might not care about the answers to those questions. A good example would be someone who has no concept of a deity and likewise has not considered those questions in any way. That person would be technically an atheist who has no answer to those questions.
Further, atheists have all sorts of different answers, depending on who you ask, which further refutes your claim that it's a worldview.

Being an atheist, your system of thought tries to define everything starting from and looking at everything through a particular slant.

Rational skepticism is not a slant. It's the only rationally justified approach which has repeatedly demonstrated its reliability as a pathway to truth. Faith has not.

The question is which is more reasonable and logical and which can make sense of our origins and values.

No, the question is which has met its burden of proof. If all you care about is which is claimed to be able to make sense of our origins, then farting pixies and sneezing fairies works just as well as your god.

My claim is that only my theistic system of thought makes sense or can make sense of it.

Even if you could support that claim (you haven't), this criteria is wholly irrelevant, as the pixies and fairies example demonstrates. This is also demonstrated by the existence of all other theistic claims which contradict yours, but which are equally valid according to your criteria.

I ask you how "best" can exist/be if everything is relative or for that matter from a subjective, limited mind?

To which I already replied:
A "universal best" might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does. So we're left dealing with reality (as we experience it) on reality's terms, and we have to come to terms with the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

If a universal best, a measure that we can measure everything else from, does not exist then why is your measure any better than mine?

It depends on whether we agree to care about well-being. Once we do, then the measure is the facts. Whichever measure is supported by the available facts is better.

All you can do is CALL it better.

Well, I already provided a basis for making objective moral evaluations, but the flaw you try to apply to secular morality isn't avoided by Xtianity. All you can do is claim that there's a deity who has made moral pronouncements. Nothing about that makes it actually better or the best, even if we accept that the deity exists. It just another IS which doesn't get us to the OUGHT.

Preference does not make something good; it just makes it permissible. Hitler or Kim Jong-un permits something that you don't or may not like in your society such as the killing of Jews, or the suppression of a people. Unless you can produce a universal standard and measure what makes their view any better than what you believe? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

Again, I've already provided the basis for making objective moral evaluations within secular morality.

THAT is your assumption. Mere assertion.

No, it's a fact. You've claimed that you have an ultimate best. You have not demonstrated that it is actually the ultimate best. Simply defining it as such does not make it so.

As I have said, I have a reasonable and logical faith

As you have said but not supported...

that is necessary for the ultimate best

Claiming it's necessary does not make it so. You have to demonstrate that it is. Otherwise, I can simply claim that the reality-farting pixies are necessary for there to be an ultimate best. This gets us nowhere.

I do not see you as being able to give answers to origins and meaning sufficiently.

I've already explained that we may never know the answers to origins, as well as where meaning comes from. Your statement that you don't see those as sufficient answers is irrelevant.

When I dig into the nuts and bolts (the basics that holds everything you believe - the web of your core beliefs - together) of your worldview presuppositions I see them as unraveling and leading to the senseless. (Matthew 7:26-27)

Again, there's nothing inherently necessary about the universe that requires there to be a meaning, ultimate best, or sense. You'd need to provide support that it is before this counts as a valid criticism of the atheistic position.

I have an ultimate best, granting that God exists.

Right, but the "granting" part is were you get into trouble. We could just as easily grant that farting pixies exist and be able to get our hands on that holy ultimate best you keep going on about.

What is more, I can make sense of origins.

Well, for one, you can't. Again, you can't explain a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. But in any case, even if we granted that your explanation was valid, simply having an explanation doesn't make it true - we're back to universe-farting pixies again.

Why would something that has no intention, no purpose be capable of producing both? You ASSUME 'it' (whatever it is) can.

Again, nobody assumes that.

How do you know that it is an improvement unless you have a final/fixed reference point? You don't.

Again, I've provided the reference point, which is the objective evaluations, based on available evidence, which demonstrate whether something ensures well-being.

The standard is always shifting without a final reference point. Demonstrate with a shifting reference point that your OPINION is any "better" than any other without a fixed reference.

The reference point is our agreement to care about well-being and the standard is whether something ensures well-being.

Your worldview in regards to morality is no better than any other UNLESS there is a final, fixed, unchanging reference point that good and evil can be compared.

You keep claiming this, and yet fail to provide any support.

Otherwise, it is just preference - personal FEELINGS or likes versus dislikes. Some like to burn witches, other like to befriend them. What is your preference?

Again, I've provided the foundation for making objective moral evaluations. It is not based on preference.

1) I mean, Is it rationally consistent with what it claims? Or Does it borrow from another worldview to make sense of its claims?

You were the one who made the statement that my worldview cannot make sense of itself. Make your arguments and provide support.

3) If you do not believe in God, the ultimate Supreme Being, then you HAVE to explain everything in naturalistic means eventually

Again, no, there are many atheists who haven't even considered the explanation for everything.

Why is maximizing prosperity good?

Because we've agreed to care about well-being a prosperity in a secular moral system. If you're yet again absurdly demanding an "ultimate best", then I'll repeat:
Such a thing might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does, and all you can do is claim there is one. So we're left dealing with reality (as we experience it) on reality's terms, and we have to come to terms with the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

In a universe without any ultimate fixed measure, that takes no note of suffering, or cares about it in any way, what does it matter?

It matters to us.

If you want to believe it does, so be it, but why do you continue to deny those who do not believe in maximum prosperity as the "better" option?

We not only believe it does, but we can support that it does. Those who do not care about well-being usually don't end up sticking around for too long.

Look at all those who believe in looking out for themselves and bleed the rest of us dry. If they choose to take your life, what makes that evil in a relative, changing universe?

According to the universe it doesn't matter, of course. But according to the objective evaluations which can be made in a secular moral system by members who agree to care about well-being, it's labelling as evil is quite easily justified.

If they have the power to do so, then so be it.

Sure, if someone has the power to do evil and doesn't care about the consequences, there's nothing I can do to stop them. It doesn't change the fact, however, that I'm able to support the objective evaluation that their actions are evil. It's a lot like your god, in a way. There's nothing I can do to stop Yaweh from applying an unjust infinite punishment for a finite crime if he exists, but that doesn't change the fact that I'm able to support the objective evaluation that his actions are evil. If he exists and is anything similar to the monster described in the bible, then there's nothing I can do but suffer an eternal punishment with the knowledge that I'm morally and intellectually superior to him.

Again, your view fails the test of logic, of two opposing beliefs being true at the same time and in the same manner.

This is not my view, but your misrepresentation of it. No wonder it fails the test of logic.

Meaning loses its identity.

This is an incoherent statement.

One has to be wrong, and only if there is a final reference point does it ultimately matter, or anything goes. Such specifics like abortion or same-sex union can't both be good and not good at the same time and in the same manner.

And I already provided the foundation for determining which is wrong.

It is the question of the is/ought fallacy; how you get from an is to an ought in a strictly material universe.

I've provided the pathway to the ought.

How do your values originate? They SUPPOSEDLY originate from an amoral universe with a system of belief that denies a personal supreme being. They originate from changing likes and preferences. Show me otherwise.

This is yet another absurd misrepresentation of secular morality. Secular moral values don't originate from changing likes and preferences. Take a look at any single dispute about rights in the last 100 years, and you can clearly see this. None of the parties involved were arguing solely on the arbitrary basis of likes and preferences. This is just so absurd it's not even funny.

Says who? A lion does not debate on whether it is right or wrong to kill a gazelle. It likes the taste in its mouth and feeling in its belly, so it does it. It knows its survival depends on eating it, or it would not bother and die.

The morality of the jungle is quite different from ours, although there are some governing principles which are shared by both, namely the principle of well-being. In an ecosystem such as the jungle, the animals rely on and operate within a natural equilibrium, of which lions eating gazelles is a natural part. So comparing that to secular human morality is not valid. A more valid example would be when a male lion commits infanticide and eats a cub. While there are studies which hint at there being long-term benefits to the species, it's easy to see why infanticide is not practiced by more socially-developed species such as chimpanzees, humans, and other apes. Simply put, any possible benefit from infanticide would be greatly out-weighed by the harm it would do to a society which cares about maximizing well-being and minimizing unnecessary harm, and is able to find ways of achieving that benefit - whatever it is - through other, less harmful means.

Hitler did not think it is wrong to kill Jews. Kim Jong-un does not think it is wrong to exploit his people.

And they were wrong, and we can show why they were wrong according to objective evaluations of their actions. But it's important to recognize, however, that the harm done by Hitler and Kim Jong Un was not made possible by skepticism, secular humanism, or even atheism. In both their cases, it was the dogmatic belief of their followers which led to their atrocities. No one in their right mind would say that the problem with those regimes was that they had too much skeptical enquiry & rational discourse going on.

So what? Why should I care about what is important to you, as long as what I like to do is the prevalent view?

Again, if we agree to care about well-being, then this is a no-brainer.

When you say, "we are the ones who determine what is best" then if someone has an opposing view on what is best, who is "right?"

The one who can back up their position with available evidence.

Is it the majority that rules?

If the question cannot be determined by objective evaluation of available evidence, then the majority determines the outcome, yes. This is what happens when people vote on things. However, we should hope, at least, that the majority doesn't simply choose which side they're on based on the arbitrary basis of likes and preferences, and instead evaluate evidence and arguments available to them in order to determine which side they're on.

Again, how does preference make something "good?" Because you can beat someone over the head if they do not follow what you like?

This is yet another gross misrepresentation of secular mortality.

That is what happens in most dictatorships throughout history.

Right, and you'll notice that most dictators don't really care about the well-being of their country.

Unless you have an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, righteous source that is best why is your measurement the standard I SHOULD follow?

If you don't agree to care about well-being, then by all means, don't follow that standard.

So why should I make it meaningful? Try living it when you're starving to death and you have no hope, or in a Nazi concentration camp. How is there justice there? What is justice in an amoral universe?

The universe doesn't inherently provide us with justice, and it would be naive to think it did. We must ensure justice ourselves.

If I disagree, which one of us is right? In a universe without any ultimate reason or meaning why SHOULD I care? It is all relative.

We were talking about whether I was imposing your worldview by deeming a suicide tragic. Again, I have full justification for why someone in pain committing suicide would be considered tragic. Your response doesn't seem to address this in any way.

You would have to borrow from the Christian worldview that believes it is wrong to commit suicide or right to have compassion on others to "justify" the view. You would have to demonstrate that your relativistic and subjective views are based on what is best or "good," or it is meaningless - it can mean whatever a person wants to make it mean.

I don't need to borrow from the Christian worldview to believe it is wrong to commit suicide because I don't believe it is wrong to commit suicide in all cases. In any case, I find it quite ironic that you would mention infinite punishment for committing suicide along with compassion for others in the same sentence.

Some people do. But if you are nothing more than a biological bag of matter, it makes no difference, ultimately, what you or I believe.

Again, this "ultimate best" is a red herring. Such a thing might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does, and all you can do is claim there is one. So we're left dealing with reality on reality's terms, and if we care about well-being, then we have to accept the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.

My Christian worldview believes it matters for a good reason. God has created us, and He values our life, and He is the One who grants it, sets it in place, and has the right to take that life from us.

These are all assertions which you have not supported. And please note, even if we accepted that there are actually valid predictions in the bible which were fulfilled, it would not demonstrate that anything else in the bible is actually true. Someone making a prediction which they claim they got from a deity and then the prediction coming true in no way demonstrates the mechanism behind how they got the prediction, nor does it demonstrate the truth of any of their other claims.

You continue to inject meaning into a meaningless universe because you think it matters. It does not matter in such a universe. Besides, why do you continue to find such meaning from such a universe? Why do you continue to find a reason when no reason is ultimately there? It is so inconsistent.

I've already addressed this.

If a value is relative then how do you know it is good or bad?

By making objective evaluations based on the available evidence. If humans value something, then of course that value is by definition relative to those humans. But once a value is established, such as agreeing to care about well-being, it's easy to make objective evaluations of situations and determine whether they're good or bad according to well-being.

Ultimately, in such a worldview, my life is neither good or bad in a meaningless universe. It just is.

Yes, according to the universe, our lives have no ultimate meaning. This does not preclude us from establishing our own meaning, however, which we readily do. And it's really strange that you would have such an issue with this. In virtually every other aspect of your life, you'd resist anyone telling what you should do or value, or what meaning you should adopt. In highschool, you'd never accept the government telling you that you're destined to be this or that, and that this is what you have to study when you get to college and you can't decide for yourself. And when applying for a job, if they were to impose their own desires on you in deciding where to work, that would be ridiculous. But when we find ourselves in a universe utterly devoid of any apparent meaning specific to humans, all of a sudden you find yourself claiming that us making our own way is impossible, and that some externally-imposed purpose is necessary? It never ceases to amaze me how deep some folks' indoctrination goes.

[futureboy]

--- continued from #547 ---

Then you are living contrary to your materialistic worldview from which nothing ultimately matters.

No, I'm not. I never claimed that it's a tragedy because of some ultimate meaning. I stated that it's a tragedy because of the suffering the person goes through and the lost opportunity for prosperity. Both of these are values we determine ourselves and do not require any ultimate meaning in the universe or externally-imposed values for us to be able to recognize the value to us.

Again, you have crossed over to borrow from my Christian worldview in which it does ultimately matter because we are answerable to God.

My response had nothing to do with the Xtian worldview or ultimate meaning. On the contrary, my answer clearly showed how much more compassionate human values are when compared to your evaluation according to Xtianity. I actually care about the person, their suffering, and the possibilities they may have had in life, while all you seem to care about is an externally-imposed meaning.

If there is no God, everything is permissible, as long as you can get away with doing whatever you want to.

Recognizing that there’s no guarantee of justice in this universe is what ensures that we strive to have it. Recognizing that good isn't guaranteed to be rewarded is what makes us want to reward it when we see it. Recognizing that evil isn’t guaranteed to be punished is what makes us want to work together to deal with problems as a collective and also individually in ways which encourage actual change and which hopefully minimizes harmful actions.
Recognizing that there's no guarantee of justice means we appreciate those moments when it is achieved, and ensures that we work toward achieving it more often.

It is permitted by God since you have a violation, granted by God, but God also permits you to sin, and He gives you the consequences of sin too. He could prevent you but then you would be a robot. You are not a robot. You have a choice to disobey God, even though you will suffer consequences, for God has made know to you what is indeed right and what is indeed wrong. Your conscience bears it out. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal.

He knows all things, but it is a choice people make that they will be accountable. Since God takes life, not YOU, then you taking your life goes against God's command, which you well know - Thou shall not kill.

You completely missed the point. Again, according to your faith, every single suicide is predetermined by god. God created this universe with complete foreknowledge of every single suicide that might happen. He had the option of creating other universes instead in which nobody would commit suicide, but he chose to create this universe. You're right when you say God is the giver an taker of life. According to Xtianity, god not only gave the life to the person who commits suicide, but he also takes their life by choosing to create the universe in which they do so.

If so, then if 99 out of 100 and 990 out of 1000 people like ice-cream, then ice-cream is "good!" If 99 out of 100 like killing Jews then killing Jews is "good!"

The comparison is completely invalid since you are not including the potential consequences of both scenarios. With ice-cream, the potential consequences of everyone liking it are negligible. With killing Jews, however, the consequences are quite extreme.

This is the consequence of utilitarianism.

Sigh, no, it's not. If you ignore the potential negative consequences, you're not talking about utilitarianism.

Certainty is available through a necessary being, or to put it another way, what would be necessary for certainty?

Again, all you're doing is claiming that such a being is necessary without demonstrating that it is.

All I'm saying is my worldview can make sense of certainty. Can you be sure that the universe exists the way you perceive it to be?

If you're referring to absolute certainty, then this is a red herring. There is no solution to hard solipsism (you can't demonstrate that you aren't a brain in a vat and that everything you experience exists only in your mind). We deal with varying degrees of certainty based on the available evidence.

Only if an ultimate Being who created it has told you as much or you get lucky and think His thoughts after He does, and logic confirms such IS the case

Again, you have no demonstration of this. Any fallible being who experiences a deity telling them something can't claim absolute certainty because they're fallible. It doesn't matter that an actual deity might have actually told them something, the fact that they're a fallible human being means that absolute certainty is by definition out of reach. It's like running pure water through a dirty filter - you won't get pure water.

So you presume and this a result of your worldview position! Your worldview does not have what is necessary for certainty.

Again, absolute certainty is impossible. How can you be sure that you're not a brain in a vat?

Science, which you trust, relies on the fact of uniformity of nature, (that what has been the case continues to be). That is the framework for science. So, how certain are you of it?

As certain as necessary in order to continue to be able to rely on it and understand how it demonstrates its reliability.

If God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) then I can know that what is constant will remain constant (Genesis 8:22; Colossians 1:17). That would be one difference between our worldviews. I would have a "Better" groundwork for science.

What you have is a claim from a text, nothing more.

Why SHOULD anything REMAIN constant in a chance, random universe? THERE IS NO REASON. Yet it does!

The observed uniformity of nature and the reason for it are two completely different things. Pointing out that we don't have an explanation for uniformity of nature (that's kinda why it's an assumption in science) in no way affects the validity of the assumption.

From where your worldview starts (and finishes) there is NO REASON. How reason materializes from lifeless matter plus energy is a mystery. You can't make sense of it. Your worldview is devoid of making sense of it.

Again, it depends on how you're using the word "reason". I've addressed this. And again, failing or succeeding to make sense of something (or claiming to) has no bearing on the truth. I've already addressed this, as well.

Yes, I believe truth originates from God, and we learn it either from His word or by correctly thinking His thoughts after Him. When we do that science bears witness. So, we find the correct path via science when we correctly think His thoughts after Him.

And do you have support for any of this?

I have started to give reasons why the Bible is reasonable to believe and points to God. I invite you to refute and dispute it and let's see whose worldview is more reasonable and logical.

Nothing you have provided counts as support for your belief that "truth originates from God, and we learn it either from His word or by correctly thinking His thoughts after Him".

We do science because of the uniformity of nature - we CAN predict based on consistents (Genesis 8:22). Why IF there is no reason behind this uniformity? We would never have any faith that we could do science.

This has nothing to do with the validity of the assumption of uniformity of nature. Not having a reason behind the uniformity is precisely why it's an assumption.

So, which view of "Science" do you hold

This has no relevance to our exchange. Here it is again:
PGA: Kuhn listed some scientific paradigms that changed with more information, more knowledge, and over time, which brings into question of whether the scientific paradigms we live under today are true to what actually is the case.
FB: No, it doesn't. Only actual evidence can bring it into question. This is what is referred to with "more information, more knowledge". Even if I accepted your extrapolation from Kuhn, this does nothing at all to actually support your theistic claims. You could, right now, conclusively disprove every single scientific theory and model, and you'd still have all your work ahead of you to prove anything at all about your deity.

Specificly, can't know that God exists or the Bible is true. Can't know that God exists or the Bible is true.

Where did I say this?

Whose reality? Your view of it?

This does not address my actual response to your statement. Here it is again:
PGA: Again, I repeat, I have what is necessary for truth provided God exists.
FB: Yes, "provided". Since you haven't met the burden of proof, then you don't have what is necessary for truth.

Is it more reasonable to believe that reason derives from a reasoning being, an ultimate reasoning Being at that? It does not derive from you, or me. You are not necessary for me to reason, nor I for you.
Is it more reasonable to believe that reason can derive its existence from something inorganic, for that is supposedly where you owe your existence and reason from (when I say you, generically I mean all life forms)?

Claiming where reason comes from has no bearing on any Xtian claims.

Sure it is, for ideas are not created in a vacuum. They are built upon, one concept at a time, starting from a core presupposition(s) that requires faith.

The base assumptions don't require faith, they are by definition necessary. You can't not assume them due to the problem of hard solipsism.

Sure it does, it supports the biblical claim that God's word is true (John 17:17).

Merely repeating the claim does not address the rebuttal.

I do not merely accept some prophecy as true, I accept all that God prophesies through His divinely inspired servants as true, and I base it on a higher authority than my own for, I trust His Word as truth.

Again, whether there is an accurate prediction in one place does nothing to prove a claim in another.

I'm not familiar with The Simpsons. What exactly do you mean?

The Simpsons is a cartoon comedy that has been on TV for about 30 years. Over the course of the show, there have been numerous episodes which have since been identified as predictions that came true.

The point is that no number of fulfilled predictions lends credibility to any of the other claims, no matter how many predictions there are or how accurate they are.

Please provide the biblical prophetic verses you reference.

Egypt: Ezekiel 29:1-15
Along with other predictions which never came true, this passage predicts that Egypt would be a desolate wasteland, which has never been recorded to have happened.

Tyre: Ezekiel 26:1-21
Nebuchadnezzar never completely destroyed the city of Tyrus, as claimed in this prediction. After a many-year conflict, Tyre reached a compromise with Nebuchadnezzar and succumbed to his authority without ever being destroyed. Further, even after being conquered by Alexander the Great hundreds of years later, Tyre still exists, despite the prediction claiming that it would be completely destroyed and never built upon again.

Nile: predicted twice in Ezekiel 30:12 and Isaiah 19:1-8
There is no evidence that this has ever happened.

Judah: Isaiah 7:1-7
God promises the kind of Judah that he would not be harmed, but he was (2 Chronicles 28:1-8).

Here's another good one: Israel will live in peace with it's neighbours, as predicted in Ezekiel 28:24-26. Despite them having houses and vineyards, no punishment has been inflicted on their neighbours. Indeed, the punishment of neighbours is happening still to this day by everyone in the region.

Secular morality can't account for goodness for it has no fixed measure. The measure is always changing.

Your requirement that a moral system needs a fixed measure in order to account for goodness is unfounded. It is a bare assertion just like the bare assertion you make when you claim that you do have a fixed measure for goodness. Again, claiming you have one does not magically pop it into existence - you have to demonstrate that it actually exists. Until then, all we are left with is the realization that we're stuck dealing with reality as we observe it on reality's terms, and the reality is that there is no ultimate measure for what is good. By agreeing to care about our well-being, however, we can establish a foundation for making objective moral evaluations in any situation and determine which actions are better or worse in that situation.

So again, you claimed that "making sense of morality" is evidence of the Xtian god, and my response was that secular morality has no problem making sense of morality, and it's the only moral system which is: A) actually a system and not just a collection of pronouncements, and B) demonstrated to exist. Your response does not address these points, and simply makes the bare assertion that it can't.

a) b) Show me how.

This has been supported in the Secular vs. Religious morality thread. But, in short, there are many societies in the world which have moral systems that are secular. These are actual moral systems, meaning they can change and be improved upon as we learn more, whereas religious morality is nothing more than a collection of moral pronouncements asserted by its followers. It is not a moral system which has been demonstrated to exist - only claimed to exist.

The question is how does something that has no mind, no intent, no purpose, but is chaotic and random (chance happenstance) continue to "act" in a uniform manner? There is no REASON that it would, but you continue to argue from reason. The more you think about it, the more that REASON and PURPOSE become apparent. The minute you start to argue for your atheistic position reason becomes apparent, and you find reason supposedly from a universe that is devoid of it. Why is there a reason for any of this? Are you just making it up? Why should I believe your reasoning? Support your worldview.

This has nothing to do with our exchange. Here it is again:
PGA (providing proof that the Xtian god exists): Another is the consistency or uniformity of nature.
FB: Uniformity of nature is evidence of uniformity of nature. Any further claims require further support or arguments.

So again, the fact that we observe uniformity of nature is not evidence of god, it's evidence that there apparently is uniformity of nature.

It is much more reasonable than concluding that your origins are derived from something that is devoid of reason and logic. I witness every day that from personal, logical, rational beings come others of the same kind. I never witness these mindful qualities arising any other way.

You claimed that "the complexity and diversity of life and the universe and the reason that we can THINK about these things logically and rationally" is proof of Xtian theism.

Again, the fact that we see complexity and diversity of life and have an ability to reason and think logically is evidence that there apparently is complexity and diversity of life and we apparently have an ability to reason and think logically. This is in no way a demonstration of any Xtian theistic claims.

There is no "why" without a mindful being.

This in no way addresses by response - you appear to be going back to the previous proof you offered about us being able to think and reason.

The question then is how? How does something come from nothing? I see it as an impossibility.

You've essentially just repeated the claim without addressing my response. Here it is again:
Could there even be "nothing"? Is that even an option?

Your whole question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" assumes that there could even be "nothing", which hasn't been demonstrated. The question is nonsense until you demonstrate the two possibilities. Further, even if we granted those possibilities (something or nothing), the fact that we have something and not nothing proves just that: that there is something and not nothing. It in no way demonstrates Xtian theism.

Unless the universe owes its existence to an outside source, there must be a beginning because I don't see how you can get to the PRESENT in an infinite/eternal universe or even a string of universes that reach back to an infinite regress. In a multiverse eventually you would have to arrive at the grand beginning or we are speaking of it being eternal/infinite.

You're not doing much else here other than demonstrating your lack of understanding by conflating different concepts within cosmology. If you want to talk about something vs. nothing, fine, but that has nothing to do with whether the universe is infinite.

It is also the support

How can something be simultaneously a claim and the support for the claim? That's absurd. If you want to support the claims of the bible, then this by definition must be corroborated from elsewhere. If you want to talk about actual history, then I'm afraid that there is no consensus among non-Xtian historians about whether any of the claims in the bible are true. There is even ongoing debate among historians about whether Jesus was a myth. So "history" doesn't support what you say.

So, are you saying that they depend on you and your expectations for them to be what they are?

You seem to be referring to the assumption of uniformity of nature, which in a way does provide us with the confidence that the laws of logic as we've expressed them are valid and will remain what they are.

Neither you or I am the necessary mind that makes the law of identity, or laws of mathematics, or the laws of nature, what they are.

Again, the laws aren't things which exist physically or need to be created. If no conscious thinking agent ever existed, we can be fairly certain that reality would still function the same way as we've observed it to. And that's all the laws of logic are - our expression of how we've observed reality to function.

So you presented 7 arguments which you claimed were proof of Xtian theism:
predictions in the bible
our ability to make sense of morality
the apparent uniformity of nature
the apparent complexity and diversity of life and our ability to reason logically and rationally
the question of why something rather than nothing
the claimed unity of the bible
the laws of logic

I provided rebuttals to each of your arguments, to which you have failed to respond sufficiently in order to uphold each argument as valid proof of Xtian theism. You're 0/7.

I think it is logical. That is my support (other than His Word).

You've essentially just repeated the claim. Again, simply claiming that god's existence gives meaning to the universe and people is not support.

Do you find meaning from a meaningless universe? That is your origins without personal being. Meaning comes from the meaningless. How? If there is no purpose found from the universe why do we keep finding purpose in it?

This has been addressed.

So you invent the purpose, but there is really none ultimately there. You just make it up and delude yourself? The earth orbits the sun for no purpose/no reason. It takes the same amount of time every year. It happens for no reason yet we can discover this, we discover mathematical formulas that explain gravity, or distance, or volume. This all means nothing?

Your inability to deal with a universe devoid of ultimate meaning and which doesn't care about us isn't proof that the god humans made up to help them deal with the facts of reality is true.

All in all, Peter, I have to say that most of what you have provided as your reasons for believing don't surprise me, and are in line with most older theists I know and have spoken with. Unfortunately, the main issue behind it all is that it's not much more than a big argument from ignorance, to the point of even making up questions and issues to argue from ignorance about (something rather than nothing, laws of logic), questions and issues which have already been addressed by others.

You are clearly concerned about living in a world without ultimate meaning, purpose, morality, justice, all coming from some ultimate source. But the kind of world you want to live in has no bearing on the world you do live in. If your principle objection to other worldviews is that they don't include some ultimate purpose, morality, or justice, then you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Life is not fair, and the need for purpose, morality, and justice which you've argued exists is a core principle behind nearly every religion. But you simply can't ignore the fact that often good goes unrewarded and evil goes unpunished - and even occasionally good is punished. And creating a safety blanket to help you deal with reality and ensure you aren't mired in depression is not the answer. Just because it allows you to face the fact that we exist in a completely indifferent reality doesn't prove that it's true, just like it doesn't prove that any of the other safety blankets invented by humans throughout history are true. Whether it’s Heaven and Hell, or Karma dictating infinite rebirths, it serves the same purpose and fails for the same flaws.

Some of us understand that, in order to get the best out of life, we actually have to face reality. Some of us understand that there’s no reason to think that reality is anything other than indifferent to our existence and our ideas of good and evil. Some of us understand that dealing with reality on reality’s terms is demonstrably the only way to make actual improvements in our situation.

I thank you for taking the time to discuss this with me, present the rational justification you believe you have for your Xtian theism, and read my responses. Going forward, I'll only be addressing statements which directly respond to the points I've made, and will be ignoring the repeated questions you ask regarding your own failure to deal with reality since they've been, for the most part, unrelated to the statements you've been responding to with them.

[Belthazor]

Hmm, ok. Let me try to reframe it a bit.

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.”

Actually I believe I said that all current explanations seem fantastic (as in don't make sense/hard to believe/goes against everything we normally experience in everyday life). I would rather not get caught in definitions of a particular word.

Your claim is your explanation has more merit/warrant than the others we have discussed so far.

Even if I agreed that would not get us very far as again, all seem (insert word of choice here for incredulity/etc).

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:08 PM ----------

Not quite. I said of the three possible explanations, design has the most warrant as a valid explanation. That isn’t about my belief or about how I personally accept the explanation. Warrant is about the amount of support a claim has for and against it.

Yes, you believe that "design" has more warrant than other explanations.

How does "more warrant" make it obviously true?
If we look at a murder crime seen and there are three suspects, but one is most likely guilty based on the available evidence, that doesn't mean the person is actually guilty, right?

It is more about the level of warrant/evidence than which explanation has more. At what level of warrant/evidence do we conclude truth, is much more important than simply which has more warrant/evidence.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:19 PM ----------

Given that I have no evidence to support or reject your claim I would be agnostic on it.

Given that God is kinda prone to acting thru the average person when He deals with the masses I find that odd.

You actually give it a 50/50 kinda chance?

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:21 PM ----------

Hmm, I’m not sure where you got that. If I ask someone “Can the federal government levy an income tax?” I’m obviously assuming they at least know there is a federal government right?

Well, from you I guess!

Post #433 started this:
"Right, and we know a lot about the universe. But even if I approache someone who knew virtually nothing about the IRS. Someone who was blissfully unaware of federal income taxes, agencies, etc. That person could still reasonably answer the question, "Does the government have the power to levy an income tax?"

I don't know any other way to take:
"Someone who was blissfully unaware of federal income taxes, agencies, etc."
(emphasis mine)

---------- Post added at 06:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:30 PM ----------

Exactly! The way we expect because we have a very validated understanding of the underlying laws. And that understanding of those laws still allows us to make predictions unrelated to dark matter like sending sattellites.

Exactly, we don't know what the hell is going on, but we suspect there is more matter than we can identify on the order of almost all of it.....

---------- Post added at 06:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:32 PM ----------

When you say “made for humans” what do you mean?

When I "say"??
This is a typical Christian claim (based on Genesis I believe).

If you don't believe God made Earth for humans to live on, I retract the statement

---------- Post added at 06:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 PM ----------

Well if we agree it is possible, it doesn’t make very much sense to rule it out as impossible. That is how I interpreted your previous response and the one before, that we could, at least tacitly, dismiss this option because it was incoherent. Since that doesn’t seem to be the case, I’m not sure that objection holds.

Negative Ghostrider!
I don't believe I have rejected any premise so far in this thread?

---------- Post added at 06:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

Running back through the thread, I think what you said was:

4) God is conscious but has no physical presence and is timeless etc (how could such a being even be said to exist?).

Which I am under the impression we talked about earlier and which died out.

A good thought point though.
How can a timeless being act?
How can a being with no form/substance/immaterial be called a "being".

---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe.

1. Are we not currently looking for "bruises" (for lack of a better term to describe an interaction between universes)"?
2. How can God interact with our universe then if you have to be part of it to have "any interaction"?

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------

I’m going to appeal for full credit here :-). You said that gravity was undeniable, they don’t believe in gravity at all.

I had to go back pages and pages to look up your last challenge and don't have time at the moment to look this one up, but I am sure I said something much, much closer to :
"though we may not know why, something keeps our feet on the ground (earth). This is undeniable?" or something similar.

I see no reason to give full credit. Your rebut was amusing, but he doesn't deny that something (the effect of a known undeniable fact) is keeping his feet on the ground.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

Certainly he is a good example of the kind of people I was referencing earlier, that they are willing to deny anything, no matter how obvious.

Yes, and your claim this represents the majority of humans that ever lived had a similar aversion to logic is totally unfounded and needs considerably more support! That some humans can delude themselves to the obvious, hardly supports that nearly all humans suffer from this to this degree (denying God is obviously true/etc).
This would have to be the case since almost all humans that evert lived were not Christian???

---------- Post added at 07:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:55 PM ----------

Across what dimensional set is He an actual infinity in this scenario? IE the natural numbers are an actual infinity across the dimension of cardinality of that set. What is the measure you are using?

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

I don't understand your question? I though mine was pretty clear.

No beginning, no end (but does actually exist) = Definition of infinity.

How is existed forever not an infinity and also not implying time as a necessity? How can exist not explicitly involve time on some form/frame/level?

Where did I go wrong?

[Belthazor]

[I’m asking this because I think your question implies that God is time bound. IE that He has just been sitting out there in time forever.]

As we discussed, "time" began for "our" universe at the BB. As we have acknowledged, there could be other universe'/realities (which is a necessity if God exists...). It is likely they have "time" of their own unrelated to ours is it not?

I just can't see how God can be "unaffected by/above/not subject to" time in some way if He actually exists and acts in any fashion. For any action there is before/after. This is "time".
Or how are you defining "time" so a being can actually be "timeless"?

[Belthazor]

You objected to an explanation as “fantastic.” My point is that that is a very loaded term. If I were to tell someone in the 1880s that man would use heavier than air aircraft in 20 years he would call that fantastic (it was largely thought to be physically impossible at the time).

True, and almost as amusing, travel faster than the speed of sound was thought impossible as well!

I say amusing because birds and insects were flying right in front of their faces at the same time these people were saying heavier than air objects could not fly!
It's fairly obvious birds and insects are heavier than air but fly around just fine (another undeniable something it seems? Even flat Earther's will admit birds fly/become more buoyant/get their damn feet off the ground into the air in ways men cannot).

Guns that could shoot projectiles faster than the speed of sound had been around since the at least the mid 1800's and whips had been cracking the sound barrier long before that.

Now on the one hand, this lends strength to your argument about people not being able to see the "forest for the trees" as it were.
On the other hand, God would know this would be the case, so if He created us as we are, He would have known most would not fallow Him. This seems to go against the common Christian claim that "God wishes all to be saved"?
Does free will necessarily mean that most will not be able to "see the forest for the trees"?

Which brings us to an issue. When discussing religion with Christian's, often when a point gets sticky, the Christian will say they personally don't believe that or that their Church does not say that or some such. Why wouldn't Christianity be more unified in their beliefs?

[Squatch347]

The arguments don't even warrant a rebuttal since they don't support your Xtian theistic claims.

Which was the point I was making in my last post. You haven’t responded to the argument so it seems, from everyone else’s perspective that you have withdrawn.



And it certainly isn’t a personal attack to note that not engaging with a premise does not constitute a rebuttal. Simple claims, like this one are nothing more than “nu-uh” responses, not debate and border on spam, not discussion.

Again, arguments which don't necessarily support your theistic beliefs will be disregarded.

Ok, but these arguments do support my theistic beliefs. Because they are not the totality of the argument set has no bearing on that fact. Demonstrating gravity through a physics experiment is support for the Standard Model of physics, even if, by itself, it isn’t a full defense. Starting with a principle before moving on to another is hardly bad form.

Existence is by definition necessarily temporal.

Can you support that? Specifically, that absent a temporal dimension something cannot be said to exist? (again we have a Nobel prize for you if you can). [And to deal with your last sentence, it would be nonsensical to say it existed for 0 seconds if it didn’t have a temporal aspect, 0 is a measure of length in that dimension].





As part of that support, can you reconcile it with this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08631 Specifically, why this paper should be rejected since it mentions exactly what you are talking about (existence absent a temporal dimensional value) as a coherent concept?

The physical constants of our universe are our conceptualizations of how we've observed our universe to function.

Again, this position disagrees with the evidence. If you wish to maintain it, please offer support.



And, just to be clear, in order to be convincing you’d need to address why all these peer reviewed papers are necessarily incoherent or why these physicists (and their peer reviewers) are wrong:

For example, the physical constants of our universe are not generally held by physicists to be bound to our universe. They aren’t determined by it, nor governed within it.https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06944



It would also generally make sense when used in the context of a multiverse, even if that multiverse does not contain physical or temporal dimensions. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08631



Nor do I think Neil Turok is “incoherent” when he is describing either a process, a constant, or a function as causally before or outside the universe. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02792.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1772.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404480.pdf

I've repeatedly explained the difference. Your examples are of changes in existing matter within an existing universe.

Yes, I get that that is the difference you assert is relevant. As I said in my last post, you haven’t detailed why it matters.



Why does it being matter creation have anything to do with the concept of identity or ontological referents? How does your conception of radical rejection of all ontology (IE nothing that we have named really exists, ie there are no atoms, no such thing as hydrogen, just a collection of pre-existing sub-atomic particles) not become inherently incoherent in the ways described in posts 337 and 308?



Specifically, why is Neil Turok (in his paper above) insane for discussing the two concepts interchangeably (quantum tunneling and dimensional creation). How are all models that involve a matter creating expansion at t~0 (IE all of them essentially) inherently flawed in a way that you understand, but no physicist that peer reviews papers seems to understand?

Again, that's all we have examples of, and they don't serve as support for the claims of the KCA.

Not according to you future. You said: “ if we accepted virtual particles as changing from demonstrably and actually not-existing to demonstrably and actually existing…”



Which is what I've already supported with peer-reviewed articles and quotes from physicists.



As pointed out in post 338:

What Prof. Strassler, and Prof. Kane are saying is that the total energy of the universe is increased for a short period as part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Dr. Andreachi does a good job of explaining it here (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5731463/are-...icles-for-real) for Gizmodo:

Those of you familiar with The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle probably recall that it has something to do with not being able to measure the position and momentum of a particle to better than a particular combined uncertainty. Measure the position well, and you'll be very uncertain about the momentum, and vice-versa.

But there's another part to the Uncertainty Principle, and one that makes a mockery of the conservation of energy: You can create particles for a short while, but the more massive they are, the shorter they'll last….

Think of it like the fractions of pennies in Superman III or Office Space. The roundoff error is so small that nobody would notice, and it's all supposed to cancel out in the end. So on the whole, energy conservation will work out eventually, after microscopic fractions of a second.
…
Even in the so-called vacuum, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, but they do so in pairs. At this very moment and all around you, electrons and their anti-particles, positrons are being created and, about a billion-trillionth of a second annihilated again. The same is true (with even shorter lifetimes) for virtually every other possible set of particle/anti-particle pairs.
…
A variant of this may also have happened in the very early universe. In the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, particles pairs were created constantly. But during the period of "Inflation" (which I'd love to talk about in a future column, if only somebody would ask), the universe exploded in size, and particles which were initially near one another quickly became separated by such huge distances that they couldn't possibly recombine.

Thus we can see that virtual particles are not transformations of energy and matter, they are creations of it, if for just an incredibly brief period. Regardless, it certainly fits the definitions offered. Begins to exist means "Expressing the result of a process or action where the object comes into being at a certain time or place, thus having an objective reality or being."

I'm not making any claims...

Exactly, and by not addressing the premises and arguments made by others, you have (as I said in my last post), by definition moved away from that argument.



Again, I’m happy to address specific rebuttals to the argument presented, but ignoring them doesn’t leave much room for discussion.

Again, after you presented the KCA, FT, Moral arguments, I asked you if these were the arguments which convinced you to believe in the first place, to which you answered that, No, "they were not". Therefore, with these arguments, you aren't presenting the arguments which convinced you in the first place, according to your own admission.

All of which is irrelevant to the thread. The thread’s OP asked us to present rational justification for our belief. That can be any of the set of reasons that constitute rational belief of a claim. For example, let’s say you claimed that Bill Clinton was President in 1996. You could cite your memory of the event as rational justification for your acceptance of the claim. You could cite news articles referencing him as president during 1996. You could cite a governmental website as evidence that your belief is rational.



Any one of those citations would mean that your belief in his presidency is rational. The fact that the governmental website wasn’t the first that came to mind when asked isn’t relevant to the question. You are free to put forward whichever rational justification you’d like. As am I. As long as any one of those holds, the belief is rational.

"Build-on arguments" which do not necessarily lead to a conclusion which exclusively supports Xtian theism will be disregarded.

Of course, you have no idea what the conclusion is because you won’t even engage the premises. You are like a man who argues that The Maltese Falcon isn’t a murder mystery because the falcon didn’t actually kill anyone. Because an argument aimed at someone specifically approaching it from a hostile position isn’t digestible into a bumper sticker doesn’t mean it isn’t an argument.



There is no rational validation for the position you’ve taken here. If you think that some conclusion will be smuggled in later, you need to object at that point. But don’t object to a sound argument with defense of validity because you can’t see what implications its conclusion might entail.

This is a ridiculous demand

It isn’t a demand, it is a necessary reality. One can’t detail a higher order principle without first accepting its foundational principles. I can’t defend the nature of general relativity if you reject the concept of mathematics and observation.

Again, if this thread is about whether your Xtian belief is rational, but does not include the reasons you came to the belief, then by definition, the reasons you came to the belief are not the reasons why your Xtian belief is rational.

Which is a radically different conclusion than my reasons for belief being irrational or incompatible with a rational argument, which was your position in the last two responses.

It is also a blatant compositional fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...mposition.html). Because I chose to present these arguments as rational defenses does not mean that the ones I chose to not present are not rational defenses. You’ve assumed that my presentation contains the sum total of all rational defense, which is clearly an unwarranted assumption. See the Clinton example above. Because you lead with the governmental website does not mean that the newspaper articles are not rational reasons for you holding your belief.

But the main issue is that you seem to think that by simply including the design option in the argument, this fulfills the requirements for it to even be considered as an option, and anyone who disputes that must support why it could only be the other two options.

You seem to misunderstand the premise a bit. I’m not simply constructing three possible options to bounce off of each other. I’m constructing a MECE (see last post) premise. IE any and all possible explanations must fit into one of the categories. To use an analogy:



1) X is a primary color.

2) X is not red or blue.

3) Therefore X is yellow.



I don’t need to support individually why yellow is a primary color as long as I can show that red, blue, yellow are the exhaustive set of primary colors. In this argument I’ve already offered a defense as to why the three chosen options are, categorically, a MECE construct. IE that they cover all logically possible explanations.



When you reject that, you bear the burden of showing how they aren’t MECE. IE what type of logically possible explanation covers the explained phenomenon and doesn’t fit into one of the three categories (necessity, chance, design).



I’m open to you offering that fourth option, or an argument showing that those three don’t cover the full range of possible options, but an appeal to ignorance fallacy doesn’t constitute a rebuttal.

As I've already explained, the statement "You can count to infinity if you count an infinite number of times." is intended only to point out the absurdity of any claims which include both the concept of counting (getting to something) and the concept of infinity.

To the extent that you are saying that the process of counting and a complete set of infinity are absurd to link together I think we are saying the same thing here. The process of counting (potential infinity) cannot become a completed set of infinite cardinality (actual infinity).



If you are saying something different, something like that the act of counting can create a completed infinite set I’m not sure your last response conveys that, nor how it would square with the mathematicians quoted.



To the point of why that subject came up. If the act of counting cannot produce an actually completed infinite set, how can an iterative process like time ever be past eternal?

Your claim is your explanation has more merit/warrant than the others we have discussed so far.



Even if I agreed that would not get us very far as again, all seem (insert word of choice here for incredulity/etc).

Ah, thank you for the clarity. I agree, if we use the word as I think you mean it here that doesn’t really get us very far at all for the exact reason you mention. Plus one additional. It might seem fantastic to us, but to physicist, or a madman, it might not seem fantastic. I think we need to be very wary of rejecting or adopting a premise based on that criteria.



The rejection of chance could be based on how it strikes us, but I think a better review of its warrant is based on the mathematical field of statistics. We have a lot of familiarity evaluating whether chance created an outcome or not and a whole series of statistical tests that can be employed to measure exactly how confident we are that chance was not involved. Given that this particular scenario rises to the 99.9999 (insert something like 23 nines here)% confidence level that chance is not involved, I think we can be pretty confident that one of the remaining two options is at play.

If we look at a murder crime seen and there are three suspects, but one is most likely guilty based on the available evidence, that doesn't mean the person is actually guilty, right?

I think this is a great analogy, but is missing one point. It is whether there are other possible suspects we haven’t identified. If we came across a murder crime scene and we found there were only three people who possibly could have committed the murder, and we know that two of them didn’t do it, does that mean the third person is actually guilty? Yes.

You actually give it a 50/50 kinda chance?

No, I assign no odds value to it. If I told you I had a die in my hand, what is the probability of rolling a 1? An answer of 1 in 6 would be incorrect because you are relying on a dubious assumption (that I have a traditional die in my hand).



Likewise, your original statement claiming diety is impossible to assess because it claims no authority. Exactly the opposite of how the Bible portrays God. God, while rightly chiding us for consistently needing a sign doesn’t just appear without any validation of His claim.

I don't know any other way to take:

"Someone who was blissfully unaware of federal income taxes, agencies, etc."

Well, I obviously didn’t think you would presume that not knowing about the IRS (federal agency) is the same thing as not knowing about the federal government as a whole. That seems like a pretty big difference.



So, setting aside the misinterpretation/miscommunication, let’s address the question again. Let’s say we approach someone who has taken a really basic civics course (three branches of government, based on a constitution, let’s have orange slices type of level) and ask him, can the federal government level an income tax?



He wouldn’t necessarily need to consult the IRS manual on the tax code to answer that would he? He could rely on the Constitution’s explicitly granting the government that power to answer it right?

Exactly, we don't know what the hell is going on, but we suspect there is more matter than we can identify on the order of almost all of it.....

We have two conflicting observations, one about gravity (well tested) and one about how much matter is in the universe (not as well tested). When the two run up against an observational difference, we generally side with the one that is better tested and create a hypothesis for further testing.



We don’t say that we have no idea what is going on and that we can’t make basic inferences about the parts of both laws which aren’t well tested.



To tie this back into the thread, the day someone saw that the amount of observed matter in the universe (one theory) was different than what gravity was saying (another theory) no one immediately said that we needed to ground airplanes and postpone all satellite launches. We knew that we understood gravity well enough at that level to be confident in those activities even if we couldn’t fully adjudicate what it was telling us about dark matter.



Assuming we agree on that, the same is true here. Because we don’t fully understand the nature of quantum gravity is not a valid reason for us to through the rules of logic, gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics out the window. We can, and should, be hesitant in making predictions that border on areas touched by quantum gravity. We shouldn’t say that we can’t make any reliable predictions until we understand it.

When I "say"??

This is a typical Christian claim (based on Genesis I believe).

I was quoting you from earlier. Remember, my suggestion is that you are improperly inferring what Christians mean when they say that. By implying that we know it Isn't the case because there are oceans we can’t live in right now you are using an assumption that we mean “to maximize the square footage we can live on.” Most Christians, and certainly not Genesis itself, do not hold to that viewpoint at all. There is really no biblical support that in the range of goals God had when creating the world was maximum living space one of them.



Now, instead, if we rely on a more biblical and common understanding of that phrase to mean that God created the world for us to use as part of His greater plans then sure, I can subscribe to that. But that kind of takes the air out of the objection.

I don't believe I have rejected any premise so far in this thread?

Ok, my mistake. Then what is your objection from post 496 getting at? If you aren’t rejecting that such a concept is coherent, that objection seems to have been met.

How can a timeless being act?

How can a being with no form/substance/immaterial be called a "being".

The second question seems to be related to my immediately previous question. I don’t see why there would be a contradiction unless we assume a materialistic explanation where only matter counts towards being hood. Certainly nothing in the definition requires physical matter: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being



The first question is one I’ve discussed somewhere before, though I probably have no hope of finding it. I think the hard time understanding how something can act absent time is partially based on our limited experience and cognitive abilities. We (almost) exclusively operate in a timebound fashion so its hard to understand what that would look like in an atemporal perspective.

We can start by pointing out that action is just state change, which doesn’t inherently require any kind of temporal aspect, just an ordering. That order can be placed along a temporal dimension, but doesn’t have to be. We actually operate that way a surprising amount in games and puzzles, but we assume temporality because it is so steeped in our lives.

This was partly where I got into a discussion with future about causets, which are the physics explanation that best fits what you’re asking. I’ll spare you though. Sufficed to say, causality and action are often modelled in physics absent any temporal component because it is unnecessary to what is being discussed.

1. Are we not currently looking for "bruises" (for lack of a better term to describe an interaction between universes)"?

2. How can God interact with our universe then if you have to be part of it to have "any interaction"?

Those would be different “universes” within our greater spacetime manifold. This is a problem with the multiple definitions that often occurs with science reporting. In those kinds of reports, the reporter is defining universe as our set of 4 spatiotemporal dimensions, rather than a greater manifold.

I don’t think I said that you have to be part of the universe to interact with it. Rather, that dimensional sets with causal relationships are defined as part of the manifold.

I see no reason to give full credit. Your rebut was amusing, but he doesn't deny that something (the effect of a known undeniable fact) is keeping his feet on the ground.

Except even if you frame it this way it isn’t undeniable. There are those that deny the physical nature of existence. There are those (see Prof. Krauss the notable atheist for example) that deny that there is such a thing as deniability (yes I see the irony). His argument is that there is no such thing as a brain state anyway, so there is no point in saying that an argument is good or bad, supported or not. I also would encourage you to read the page I linked, the guy literally denies that his feet are on the ground, he literally argues that falling is a misconception based on your having been lied to all your life.



I think what has been lost here is the underlying point that human beings are profoundly good at convincing ourselves of what we want to be true. And perhaps even better at convincing ourselves of things that reject what we are afraid to be true. That remarkable ability is really hard to deny given the myriad examples we’ve talked about.

No beginning, no end (but does actually exist) = Definition of infinity.

That isn’t really the definition of infinity though. Rather, infinity is an unbounded (no beginning and no end roughly correlates) quantity (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Infinity.html). IE of something. An infinite number of apples. An infinite set of numbers. God could be infinitely powerful (ie his power has no bounds) or something like that, but it can’t just be infinite as an adjective not tied to noun or other adjective.



So what attribute or quantity does God possess infinite amounts of that I would need to defend?

As we have acknowledged, there could be other universe'/realities (which is a necessity if God exists...).

It is? I don’t see why that is the case, and I’m sure I never agreed that that was a true statement. Why would God need to be part of some other dimensional set?

It is likely they have "time" of their own unrelated to ours is it not?

It is? Why? I think this is more a product of projecting our understanding and personal experience. None of the cyclical models have a temporal dimension that isn’t the one we talk about. The multi-verse model doesn’t use time either (it uses an ordered, linear dimension, but not time). I don’t think there really is any good reason outside of it being hard to picture why other universe bubbles in our manifold would need to have a temporal dimension.

For any action there is before/after. This is "time".

You are conflating time with order here. 3 comes after 2 and 1 comes before 2. That isn’t time, it is order.

Even flat Earther's will admit birds fly/become more buoyant/get their damn feet off the ground into the air in ways men cannot).

Not trying to stir the pot, believe me, but go read that guy’s page, he really does deny things like falling (your feet coming back to the ground). I only say it again because I think you might get a kick out of reading it.

Now on the one hand, this lends strength to your argument about people not being able to see the "forest for the trees" as it were.

On the other hand, God would know this would be the case, so if He created us as we are, He would have known most would not fallow Him.

When it really comes down to it, I think a lot of what I’m been presenting to you are the practical questions God faced.



Do I create a universe or not?

If I create that universe, will the net effect of any given feature (free will, oceans, etc) produce, on net, more good rather than less?



I think there is a compelling case, especially given how ridiculously stubborn human beings are and how dangerous toying with complex systems is, that this is the optimal possible world for God to create. That this universe, for all its warts, and flaws, and hurt, only goes downhill when you monkey with it.



If someone were to hold that this universe is sub-opitmal, which is evidence that God doesn’t exist, it would be a hell of a burden of proof that they would be assuming. And I’ve seen some 10 pound brain types really try to come to grips with that argument and fallow pretty quickly.



It also reminds me of those politicians who argue that we can tweak the laws to create a perfect world. Who want “health care for all” and “no unemployment” or a thousand other utopian dreams. They tend to alter systems they don’t fully understand and create a worse result.

Which brings us to an issue. When discussing religion with Christian's, often when a point gets sticky, the Christian will say they personally don't believe that or that their Church does not say that or some such. Why wouldn't Christianity be more unified in their beliefs?

Interesting. Do you have some examples? Sometimes it is a smaller doctrinal issue. Something not really covered in scripture that different denominations have taken different positions on. Sometimes though it is a denomination letting other factors than scripture guide them (see, imo, Methodists, who often don’t have Bibles in their churches and have explicitly taken positions that violate scripture for political or politically correct reasons). It is a little like political parties. Libertarians, for example have a wide-ranging set of policy beliefs even though they seem to all start from a pretty basic fundamental rule (non-aggression principle). Application can be difficult.



The answer to you question is that we aren’t perfect either. The same foibles I’m discussing with others apply to Christians. The same mental biases and heuristics, and incentives. Sometimes we stumble out of a mistake, sometimes it is weakness.

[Belthazor]

Ah, thank you for the clarity. I agree, if we use the word as I think you mean it here that doesn’t really get us very far at all for the exact reason you mention. Plus one additional. It might seem fantastic to us, but to physicist, or a madman, it might not seem fantastic.

A "madman", really?

Ok, for the sake of our current conversation, I will give you, your least crazy idea has more merit than the rest of the bunch. Still, sounds like a reason enough to stay open minded as I still don't see any warrant/merit level high enough yet to justify an informed decision.



---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

I think this is a great analogy, but is missing one point. It is whether there are other possible suspects we haven’t identified. If we came across a murder crime scene and we found there were only three people who possibly could have committed the murder, and we know that two of them didn’t do it, does that mean the third person is actually guilty? Yes.

This here is a great point

---------- Post added at 03:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

So, setting aside the misinterpretation/miscommunication, let’s address the question again.

I think you are clearly wrong on this point, but it doesn't matter much. I won't bring it up again as the opinion of an analogy matters little.

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------

We have two conflicting observations, one about gravity (well tested) and one about how much matter is in the universe (not as well tested). When the two run up against an observational difference, we generally side with the one that is better tested and create a hypothesis for further testing.

Huh?
We can only identify 3-4% of the universe (you know, manifold thingy)!!
Newton's "apple" is well tested and true, but only gets us so far, right?

---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

I was quoting you from earlier. Remember, my suggestion is that you are improperly inferring what Christians mean when they say that. By implying that we know it Isn't the case because there are oceans we can’t live in right now you are using an assumption that we mean “to maximize the square footage we can live on.”

Perhaps, I am open to that.

But, again, you imply the most extreme possibilities. I said nothing like "maximize the square footage"??
However, if the earth was "made" for us to live on, you would think we be able to live on more than such a small % of it ??
Just a thought, not a given necessity.

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Ok, my mistake. Then what is your objection from post 496 getting at? If you aren’t rejecting that such a concept is coherent, that objection seems to have been met.

I have reread that post four times. I admit my possibly curious sense of humor is on display, but I don't understand where you are going at the moment with regards to that post?

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

We can start by pointing out that action is just state change, which doesn’t inherently require any kind of temporal aspect, just an ordering.

You have provided support that this can happen at a particle level, but not in the macro level in which we all live .
IOW, you may be able to "show" virtual particles appearing and disappearing...now show that with any object/matter/real world object/etc acting without a temporal component?

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:14 PM ----------

The answer to you question is that we aren’t perfect either. The same foibles I’m discussing with others apply to Christians. The same mental biases and heuristics, and incentives. Sometimes we stumble out of a mistake, sometimes it is weakness.

I will respond to the rest of your post later, as I am out of time tonight. I enjoy talking with you and appreciate your time. I hope others find it useful as well.
B

[futureboy]

Can you support that? Specifically, that absent a temporal dimension something cannot be said to exist? (again we have a Nobel prize for you if you can).

Really? Do they give out Nobel prizes for pointing out the definitions/usages of words? Because that's all I'm doing. All we observe as existing does so within spacetime - hence the meaning of "existence" being necessarily temporal and physical. You claim that something can exist outside it. Support or retract that claim.

As part of that support, can you reconcile it with this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08631 Specifically, why this paper should be rejected since it mentions exactly what you are talking about (existence absent a temporal dimensional value) as a coherent concept?

You'll have to provide the specific statements in that paper where the term "exist" or "existence" is applied without involving the temporal dimension or quality. On the contrary, some quick browsing finds just the opposite in the first few pages:

1. Abstract: "we show how the example of a multiverse consisting of a vast classical spacetime containing many pocket universes having different values of the fundamental constants arises".
2. P.15: "Quantum multiverses of the universe necessarily include alternative histories of cosmological spacetime"
3. P.16: "This is a very simple model that illustrates how a quantum multiverse of classical spacetime geometries emerges"
4. P.19: "The main contribution of this model to our exposition is to illustrate in a simple way how quantum multiverses of classical histories (including spacetime geometry) are predicted"

#1 is especially interesting since it supports different possible fundamental constants, which is an issue for FTA. Indeed, the possibility of a multitude of different constants is seriously considered throughout the paper.
But that's inevitably and always the case with theists making god-of-the-gaps arguments; you scour the available theories, models, and papers, for even the smallest piece of wording which you can try to twist into tenuous (and worse, non-exclusive) support for your beliefs, disregarding entire adjacent positions of those same sources which contradict your beliefs.

It's a shame I have to bring this up again, but you really should leave the scientisting to the scientists, since that's the only way we'll get to the bottom of this, if that's even what you want to do (doubtful).

Again, this position disagrees with the evidence.

You gave the physical constants as an example of something that exists outside our physical/temporal dimensions.
I replied that the constants don't "exist" in the same sense that you're trying to use them - they're simply the observations and we've made of our reality and the resulting descriptions of those observations. As such, they don't serve as an example of things actually existing outside of spacetime.

Further, if you're going to try to use the fundamental constants as examples of things which actually exist outside of spacetime by appealing to multi-verses which have different constants, this yet again fails due to those multi-verses being described as having their own spacetime, in the source you yourself have provided.

And, just to be clear, in order to be convincing

I don't need to convince anyone - the consensus of current cosmology and physics simply doesn't support your claims, which I've repeatedly pointed out. This is nothing more than shifting the burden.

you’d need to address why all these peer reviewed papers are necessarily incoherent or why these physicists (and their peer reviewers) are wrong

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but, while Dr. Neil Turok is definitely a well-known physicist, mathematician, and proponent of the cyclic model (and, incidentally, opponent of the anthropic principle), arXiv is, unfortunately for you, nothing more than an archive of posted manuscripts which have not necessarily (mostly not) undergone peer review or vetting by any serious scientific publication/journal. So your challenge here is more than a little ridiculous. Needless to say, virtually none of the serious physicists from which you offer cherry-picked support for your arguments actually agree with any of your conclusions such that refuting your arguments would mean that they're wrong.

For example, the physical constants of our universe are not generally held by physicists to be bound to our universe. They aren’t determined by it, nor governed within it.https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06944

There's no such thing as "the physical constants" which exist in any sense you're trying to use the term - they're just descriptions of the characteristics of reality as we have observed it. It's right there in the first sentence of the introduction: "phenomena in our universe can be described ... by the values of some three dozen parameters."

he is describing either a process, a constant, or a function as causally before or outside the universe

Is that what you think he's doing? Interesting. I have to say, for a guy who mostly talks about why the cyclical model of the universe makes sense, and why the anthropic principle is nonsense, I'm surprised at the fervor with which you try to claim that his work in any way supports your arguments.

Yes, I get that that is the difference you assert is relevant. As I said in my last post, you haven’t detailed why it matters.

Here is the explanation again:
Your examples are of changes in existing matter within an existing universe. The claim in KCA is precisely not that. You are equivocating creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. KCA requires the latter, while we only have examples of the former.
So, as it stands, you still have not demonstrated P1, since examples of changes in existing matter in an existing universe (creatio ex materia) are not examples of things beginning to exist in the sense necessary for the argument (creatio ex nihilo).

Why does it being matter creation have anything to do with the concept of identity or ontological referents? How does your conception of radical rejection of all ontology (IE nothing that we have named really exists, ie there are no atoms, no such thing as hydrogen, just a collection of pre-existing sub-atomic particles) not become inherently incoherent in the ways described in posts 337 and 308?

Specifically, why is Neil Turok (in his paper above) insane for discussing the two concepts interchangeably (quantum tunneling and dimensional creation). How are all models that involve a matter creating expansion at t~0 (IE all of them essentially) inherently flawed in a way that you understand, but no physicist that peer reviews papers seems to understand?

There are a number of issues here, mainly: I never forwarded a conception of "radical rejection of all ontology", I never claimed Turok is insane, and no models involve "matter creating expansion" in the form of creatio ex nihilo.

Not according to you future. You said: “ if we accepted virtual particles as changing from demonstrably and actually not-existing to demonstrably and actually existing…”

Which is what I've already supported with peer-reviewed articles and quotes from physicists.

As pointed out in post 338:

What Prof. Strassler, and Prof. Kane are saying is that the total energy of the universe is increased for a short period as part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Dr. Andreachi does a good job of explaining it here (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5731463/are-...icles-for-real) for Gizmodo:

Those of you familiar with The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle probably recall that it has something to do with not being able to measure the position and momentum of a particle to better than a particular combined uncertainty. Measure the position well, and you'll be very uncertain about the momentum, and vice-versa.

But there's another part to the Uncertainty Principle, and one that makes a mockery of the conservation of energy: You can create particles for a short while, but the more massive they are, the shorter they'll last….

Think of it like the fractions of pennies in Superman III or Office Space. The roundoff error is so small that nobody would notice, and it's all supposed to cancel out in the end. So on the whole, energy conservation will work out eventually, after microscopic fractions of a second.
…
Even in the so-called vacuum, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, but they do so in pairs. At this very moment and all around you, electrons and their anti-particles, positrons are being created and, about a billion-trillionth of a second annihilated again. The same is true (with even shorter lifetimes) for virtually every other possible set of particle/anti-particle pairs.
…
A variant of this may also have happened in the very early universe. In the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, particles pairs were created constantly. But during the period of "Inflation" (which I'd love to talk about in a future column, if only somebody would ask), the universe exploded in size, and particles which were initially near one another quickly became separated by such huge distances that they couldn't possibly recombine.

Thus we can see that virtual particles are not transformations of energy and matter, they are creations of it, if for just an incredibly brief period. Regardless, it certainly fits the definitions offered. Begins to exist means "Expressing the result of a process or action where the object comes into being at a certain time or place, thus having an objective reality or being."

*Sigh* ... Again, fluctuations/disturbances in existing electro-magnetic fields due to particle interaction within an existing universe are not examples of creatio ex nihilo. This really is getting quite tedious. If you can provide one serious and reputable scientific source supporting the position that the creation of virtual particles really is the kind of creation of matter/energy which would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics and increase the net amount of matter/energy in the universe, I'll accept that virtual particles are examples of the kind of creating required for KCA. Otherwise, you're still just equivocating creatio ex nihilo vs. creatio ex materia, which you really need to stop doing.

Which is what I've already supported with peer-reviewed articles and quotes from physicists.

The readiness and bravado with which you throw around this inflated "peer-reviewed" claim speaks volumes.

Exactly, and by not addressing the premises and arguments made by others

Again, I have explained why your arguments do not pass muster. Please leave the scientisting to the scientists - that's the only way we'll ever get to the bottom of this.
Here are the issues again:
1. They don't support theism. ("magic", or "pixies", or "farting unicorns" are all supported by them)
2. KCA's premises aren't demonstrated. (nothing has been demonstrated to begin to exist in the creatio ex nihilo sense required for KCA)
3. Fine Tuning sneaks in a designer as well as a purpose, both of which need to be demonstrated.

IE that they cover all logically possible explanations.

You have not demonstrated that design is a logically possible explanation.

To the extent that you are saying that the process of counting and a complete set of infinity are absurd to link together I think we are saying the same thing here.

Yes, therefore your objection as stated in post #422 is absurd.
Here it is again:
"iterative processes can only produce potential infinites, not actual infinites. It would be like counting to infinity. You can in theory do that, but you will never actually get to infinity."

To the point of why that subject came up. If the act of counting cannot produce an actually completed infinite set, how can an iterative process like time ever be past eternal?

"Time" as "an iterative process" as you describe is a human conceptualization of the 4th dimension, which is vastly more complex than can be expressed by those terms. It really doesn't lend itself to such simple conceptualizations.
But I'll leave it to Dr. Neil Turok to explain how this narrow-minded objection fails:
"The idea of a cyclic model isn't new: Friedmann and others pictured a cyclic model back in the 1930's. They envisaged a finite universe which collapsed and bounced over and over again. But Richard Tolman soon pointed out that, actually, it wouldn't remove the problem of having to have a beginning. The reason those cyclic models didn't work is that every bounce makes more radiation and that means the universe has more stuff in it. According to Einstein's equations, this makes the universe bigger after each bounce, so that every cycle lasts longer than the one before it. But, tracing back to the past, the duration of each bounce gets shorter and shorter and the duration of the cycles shrinks to zero, meaning that the universe still had to begin a finite time ago. An eternal cyclic model was impossible, in the old framework. What is new about our model is that by employing dark energy and by having an infinite universe, which dilutes away the radiation and matter after every bang, you actually can have an eternal cyclic universe, which could last forever."
(https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/tur...k07_index.html)

This is a great video of a lecture of his: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URYOkgbr604
It really is great that we can leave the scientisting to the scientists and maximize our chances of getting to the bottom of this, isn't it?

[Belthazor]

Not trying to stir the pot, believe me, but go read that guy’s page, he really does deny things like falling (your feet coming back to the ground). I only say it again because I think you might get a kick out of reading it.

Ok, I did read the whole thing. He is a spooly kinda guy. He does have some curious ideas that are fun for a quick distraction.

But, he does not anywhere I read, say anything like his feet are not being compelled to stay on our flat earth. Sure he thinks gravity is a hoax. However, he still sees forces at work that keep objects on the ground and not floating thru the "air".
Whether we call it gravity or "density and buoyancy." doesn't matter to my point. He doesn't deny his feet are kept on the ground.

It's like arguing whether a light bulb "emits light" or if it actually "sucks the darkness out of the room". The result (the effect) is, light. I suppose a blind person could deny this, but who else would?

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

The second question seems to be related to my immediately previous question. I don’t see why there would be a contradiction unless we assume a materialistic explanation where only matter counts towards being hood. Certainly nothing in the definition requires physical matter: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/being

A being that is not made of matter, nor energy, unbounded by any natural law, indeed unbounded period, and yet capable of energy creation, transfers, and transformations on a scale of the universe (manifold thingy). Not to mention the ability to change matter and energy into life. An impressive resume to be sure if true...

This sounds a lot like a story I heard some time ago about being a "cell" in God's actual body.

---------- Post added at 03:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

If someone were to hold that this universe is sub-opitmal, which is evidence that God doesn’t exist, it would be a hell of a burden of proof that they would be assuming. And I’ve seen some 10 pound brain types really try to come to grips with that argument and fallow pretty quickly.

When I consider nearly 100% of the entire universe (manifold thingy and apparently one hell of a "big" place) is incompatible with our type of life, it seems pretty self evident! Of course everyone has their own level of needed evidence so, time to get out your little calculator again:
What percentage of the universe is earth (the only known place to harbor human life)?
Now what percentage of earth can harbor human life?

We are obviously starting with 99.999....%.
Now how many 9's need to be added to make that actual %? "
Twenty nine" maybe

---------- Post added at 03:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:12 PM ----------

Interesting. Do you have some examples?

Whether earth was made for man for instance, I have heard that all my life. So after showing the earth doesn't care about life and challenges life to stay alive, I hear that isn't what you/your denomination believes. So I have wasted both our time by arguing something you don't support. It's moving the goal posts in a fashion because it varies by denomination, and then I can still get the "well, I don't personally see it that way even though my denomination preaches it", and it is incredibly common. Does a person have to/need to be baptized? Some care a lot! Some not so, much. You know what I am talking about and could probably make better examples than me so why are you asking me?!


This is why I told you that a Bible that each individual could easily understand (no matter language, age, background, intelligence) would indeed be a miracle worthy of the God that created the universe (as a for instance, not necessity). You asked what "such a book would look like"?
My response:
it would look different to each individual of course, hence the miracle!

A miracle worthy of a being that can create life from absolutely nothing!

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

The answer to you question is that we aren’t perfect either. The same foibles I’m discussing with others apply to Christians. The same mental biases and heuristics, and incentives. Sometimes we stumble out of a mistake, sometimes it is weakness.

I really appreciate that, and this is why I am skeptical/cautious of religious/supernatural claims. In particular when most claims are of the distant past when magic and demons etc abounded....
Actually, they still do. People still believe in spells, black magic, possession, all sorts of nasty demonic things, and powers beyond what the majority of us can attain...

I just haven't found any of it compelling enough to believe, but it's fun to explore with people that do

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

I don’t think I said that you have to be part of the universe to interact with it. Rather, that dimensional sets with causal relationships are defined as part of the manifold.

Me:
" Originally Posted by Bel
So is there any reason that the could not be another universe (manifold thingy) with "time" that is separate from ours?"
You:
"As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe."

---------- Post added at 04:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

It is? Why? I think this is more a product of projecting our understanding and personal experience. None of the cyclical models have a temporal dimension that isn’t the one we talk about. The multi-verse model doesn’t use time either (it uses an ordered, linear dimension, but not time). I don’t think there really is any good reason outside of it being hard to picture why other universe bubbles in our manifold would need to have a temporal dimension.

In what way can life be said to exist absent time?
Please define exist and time I guess??

[Squatch347]

Really? Do they give out Nobel prizes for pointing out the definitions/usages of words? Because that's all I'm doing.

So..no? Ok, just to make it official, From the rules, you now have “two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.”

I replied that the constants don't "exist" in the same sense that you're trying to use them - they're simply the observations and we've made of our reality and the resulting descriptions of those observations.

Yes, I get that, that is what I asked you to support. That is literally what the challenge in the last post was challenging, this assertion. Given that challenge, again you have ““two options, offer relevant support or retract the claim.”

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but, while Dr. Neil Turok is definitely a well-known physicist, mathematician, and proponent of the cyclic model (and, incidentally, opponent of the anthropic principle), arXiv is, unfortunately for you, nothing more than an archive of posted manuscripts which have not necessarily (mostly not) undergone peer review or vetting by any serious scientific publication/journal.

Do you have a license access to any of the major physics journals like “Journal of Physics A-Mathematical and Theoretical” or “Physical Review A” or “Physics Today?” I assumed you didn’t and as such wouldn’t be able to read the actual text of the links I was submitting. Thus I posted their ArXiv sourced articles so that you could review them. If you’d rather I only post the gated versions, I would be happy to.

You are equivocating creatio ex materia and creatio ex nihilo. KCA requires the latter, while we only have examples of the former.

There are a number of issues here, mainly: I never forwarded a conception of "radical rejection of all ontology", I never claimed Turok is insane, and no models involve "matter creating expansion" in the form of creatio ex nihilo.

When you said, as you did earlier in this thread, that the act of transforming wood into a chair is not the act of creation because the chair isn’t really an independent object distinct from the wood, you did forward a pretty radical ontology. It is pretty uncommon for people or philosophers or physicists to argue that things like atoms don’t really exist as atoms because they are just the composition of quarks. To argue that a handful of random quarks and a set of the exact same quarks arranged into a hydrogen atom are basically the same thing is pretty radical.

To your second point, we do have exactly that, virtual particles (see below). But we also have quantum tunneling (ie Turok’s model). Which brings me to a pretty dramatic (and unsupported) claim you’ve made. Can you support that no models involve matter creation at t~0? How does Turok describe quantum tunneling then?

Again, fluctuations/disturbances in existing electro-magnetic fields due to particle interaction within an existing universe are not examples of creatio ex nihilo...If you can provide one serious and reputable scientific source supporting the position that the creation of virtual particles really is the kind of creation of matter/energy which would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics and increase the net amount of matter/energy in the universe, I'll accept that virtual particles are examples of the kind of creating required for KCA.

Wait, fluctuations in the what? That you are referencing an EM field for virtual particles seems to indicate that there was a breakdown in communication or understanding somewhere. EM fields are not the cause of virtual particles.

I’m also a bit confused by your requests for reputable scientists. I quoted Prof. Matt Strassler and Prof. Charles Kane

Prof. Strassler’s background is pretty unimpeachable:

I went to college at Simon’s Rock (the first “early college.”) I got my undergraduate degree from Princeton and got my Ph. D. at Stanford. I worked as a postdoc at Rutgers University and a long-term member at the Institute for Advanced Study, and was a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Washington, before becoming a full professor at Rutgers University. In 2007 I was elected as a member of the American Physical Society.

https://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-me/

He has published literally hundreds of papers in Journals including Journal of High Energy Physics, Reports on Progress in Physics, Physics Letters B, Physical Review Letters, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, and a half dozen others. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?h...&oq=matt+stras

Prof. Kane is likewise well respected. He has his PhD from MIT, with his BS from University of Chicago. He is the Christopher H. Browne Distinguished Professor of Physics, and was the Walter H. and Leonore C. Annenberg Professor in the Natural Sciences. He has received Benjamin Franklin Medal, Elected to National Academy of Sciences, Lindback Award for Distinguished Teaching, University of Pennsylvania, Physics Frontiers Prize, Fundamental Physics Prize Foundation, P.A.M Dirac Medal and Prize, Simons Investigator grant, Oliver Buckley Prize, and the Condensed Matter Europhysics Prize.

He cites almost 80 peer-reviewed papers on his CV (https://www.physics.upenn.edu/sites/...0CV%202014.pdf), which generally only include your most notable works cited by multiple other papers. To give you another metric of how influential he is, he has over 50,000 reference citations (meaning people citing his work). https://scholar.google.com/citations...AJ&hl=en&oi=ao

So both sources in the last quote clearly, unambiguously meet your serious and reputable requirement above. And what did they say?

One, that your objection using the First Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect (in fact it is almost as if you didn’t read the post since they directly address that concern). These actions do, indeed violate the First Law and that is ok. Why? Because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle covers the net variation of total energy.

What Prof. Strassler, and Prof. Kane are saying is that the total energy of the universe is increased for a short period as part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Dr. Andreachi does a good job of explaining it here (https://io9.gizmodo.com/5731463/are-...icles-for-real) for Gizmodo:

Those of you familiar with The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle probably recall that it has something to do with not being able to measure the position and momentum of a particle to better than a particular combined uncertainty. Measure the position well, and you'll be very uncertain about the momentum, and vice-versa.

But there's another part to the Uncertainty Principle, and one that makes a mockery of the conservation of energy: You can create particles for a short while, but the more massive they are, the shorter they'll last….

Think of it like the fractions of pennies in Superman III or Office Space. The roundoff error is so small that nobody would notice, and it's all supposed to cancel out in the end. So on the whole, energy conservation will work out eventually, after microscopic fractions of a second.
…
Even in the so-called vacuum, virtual particles pop into and out of existence all the time, but they do so in pairs. At this very moment and all around you, electrons and their anti-particles, positrons are being created and, about a billion-trillionth of a second annihilated again. The same is true (with even shorter lifetimes) for virtually every other possible set of particle/anti-particle pairs.
…
A variant of this may also have happened in the very early universe. In the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, particles pairs were created constantly. But during the period of "Inflation" (which I'd love to talk about in a future column, if only somebody would ask), the universe exploded in size, and particles which were initially near one another quickly became separated by such huge distances that they couldn't possibly recombine.

Thus we can see that virtual particles are not transformations of energy and matter, they are creations of it, if for just an incredibly brief period. Regardless, it certainly fits the definitions offered. Begins to exist means "Expressing the result of a process or action where the object comes into being at a certain time or place, thus having an objective reality or being."

1. They don't support theism.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to define theism in a sense that you meant it in the OP. The arguments presented pretty clearly support a broad based theism as I understand the term, but you seem to be laboring under some other definition.

3. Fine Tuning sneaks in a designer as well as a purpose, both of which need to be demonstrated.

I’ve seen this mentioned several times, but you don’t seem to have indicated thoroughly how it does that.

You have not demonstrated that design is a logically possible explanation.

It is logically possible because it isn’t internally incoherent
I think you are confusing logical possibility with something else? Perhaps the soundness of the argument (because you haven’t accepted a premise?)

How is design an internally incoherent concept?

Yes, therefore your objection as stated in post #422 is absurd.

Here it is again:

"iterative processes can only produce potential infinites, not actual infinites. It would be like counting to infinity. You can in theory do that, but you will never actually get to infinity."

How? My point in post 422 (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560185) to Mican was that an iterative process, like counting, cannot produce an actual, completed infinite set. Which is also what I’m saying above:

the process of counting and a complete set of infinity are absurd

IE a process like counting cannot produce an infinite set.

It isn’t really clear what you are arguing here. Are you saying it is possible to use an iterative process to produce an actual infinite set?

"Time" as "an iterative process" as you describe is a human conceptualization of the 4th dimension, which is vastly more complex than can be expressed by those terms. It really doesn't lend itself to such simple conceptualizations.

Uh huh.

When you refer to it as the fourth dimension, I assume you are applying it to a minkowski metric framework?

That time is a causally iterative process isn’t really a human conceptualization any more than general relativity is a human conceptualization. Sure, it is how we communicate the underlying reality of the universe, but that has nothing to do with the point I’m making.

Unless you are saying that time is too complex to be represented by math? Is that what you are arguing?

If not, then the fact that an iterative process cannot produce an actual infinite is relevant to this argument.

If so, you’ll need to offer some strong metaphysical support for that assertion.

But I'll leave it to Dr. Neil Turok to explain how this narrow-minded objection fails:

Really, edge.org? Hardly a reliable source.

Regardless, this interview was from 2007. A lot has happened since then, including the measurement of gravity waves (which observationally disagree with Turok’s prediction), and the discovery that the universe is accelerating, not decelerating as Turok’s model predicts. There is a reason that you can’t find Turok touting his model over the last year or so (at least not with other physicists).

You can find more explanation of the accelerating universe here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08244

And here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08972

And for fun, you can hear Turok concede that his model is not observationally relevant in a panel discussion with Lawrence Krauss here: https://www.worldsciencefestival.com...ting-universe/

[On a side note, Turok’s model also requires us to accept two dubious claims. 1) That a finite universe can grow to an infinite universe, which as discussed above violates basic mathematical and logical precepts. 2) That an infinite universe is indistinguishable from a singularity. IE he smuggles in Penrose’s rejected premise that “unknowingly big” is the same thing as “unknowingly small.” ]

Ok, for the sake of our current conversation, I will give you, your least crazy idea has more merit than the rest of the bunch. Still, sounds like a reason enough to stay open minded as I still don't see any warrant/merit level high enough yet to justify an informed decision.

As my favorite detective was want to say,

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

I agree with you that agnosticism would be warranted if other options were categorically possible. However, my point is that the first premise represents a MECE categorization. IE that the group covers all logically possible explanations and thus, if we eliminate two of those categories, the remaining one, by the principle of exclusion, must be true.

I think you are clearly wrong on this point, but it doesn't matter much. I won't bring it up again as the opinion of an analogy matters little.

Fair enough, we’ve beaten the dead horse. The underlying point I was trying to make is that we don’t necessarily need to have perfect information to rule certain things in or out. I’ll drop it now as well.

We can only identify 3-4% of the universe (you know, manifold thingy)!!

Newton's "apple" is well tested and true, but only gets us so far, right?

Sorry, I realize my earlier answers weren’t quite as clear as they should have been.

We have a large set of experiments that validate our predictions of gravity’s effect given mass (IE how fast the apple should start falling, etc.).

We also have a good set of observations about how stars and galaxies are moving and accelerating/decelerating.

Given how fast they are moving, we expect there to be a certain amount of mass in the universe (based on our predictions from gravity).

The problem is, we can only see something like 3-4% of the mass we think should be there. So there is obviously a gap.

We have a couple of options at this point. We could reject relativity (claimed to be the most empirically confirmed theory of all time) or we could conclude that perhaps our observations don’t cover all the matter in the universe.

The latter is the obvious choice initially. We don’t reject both or accept that perhaps everything is wrong. We start with the most likely answer.

Let’s try a crude analogy.

You know from 30 years of marriage that your wife only cries when you don’t do an assigned chore. She has never cried under any other circumstance in that 30 years. When she gave birth to twins, she was reading a book and gave you a smile, not a tear to be had.

You come home and find her crying.

You mentally run through your chore list and conclude that you actually got everything done.

So there is a discrepancy. It is possible that you’ve encountered a scenario unlike any other one in 30 years, but that is pretty darn unlikely. So you don’t reject your conclusion that she only cries about chores. Rather you conclude that most likely you’ve forgotten a chore.

The same is true here. We don’t reject the well established observational rule, we begin testing the hypothesis that we are missing data. Assuming we agree on that, because we don’t fully understand the nature of quantum gravity is not a valid reason for us to through the rules of logic, gravity, relativity, and quantum mechanics out the window. We can, and should, be hesitant in making predictions that border on areas touched by quantum gravity. We shouldn’t say that we can’t make any reliable predictions until we understand it.

However, if the earth was "made" for us to live on, you would think we be able to live on more than such a small % of it ??

Why? And why would we measure that at our current point in technological development? Why does the fact that we currently don’t live on most of the planet (and on a shrinking portion of it) have anything to do with inferring God’s plans? Especially since there are a lot of purposes those areas can and do provide that would suit things more in line with what Genesis is telling us.

I have reread that post four times. I admit my possibly curious sense of humor is on display, but I don't understand where you are going at the moment with regards to that post?

You asked if it was possible for anything to live “forever.” My response was that it wasn’t logically incoherent so the fact that the conclusion would be eternal didn’t seem to be a logical incongruity. I’m not really sure where we stand on that point now :-)

You have provided support that this can happen at a particle level, but not in the macro level in which we all live .

IOW, you may be able to "show" virtual particles appearing and disappearing...now show that with any object/matter/real world object/etc acting without a temporal component?

That was literally the point of Heisenberg’s cat. The cat exists in both states simultaneously. When the box is opened, the cat is one state or the other. It doesn’t move from both to one state, it, absent any temporal passing, is alive or dead.

The observed analogy is electron excitement. Or light emission. When an electron receives energy and moves from one orbit to another, it doesn’t do so over a period of time. Literally no time passes between the reception of the photon and the movement of the electron. Or when an atom emits a photon (light), the photon is still at the same spot as the electron, but the electron is in a lower orbit. That movement happened without reference to any temporal period.

To take a more macro example. When you push against a wall, the wall pushes back (Newton’s third law). That wall pushes back is a reaction to your action, ie causally second. But it happens without any temporal relationship. It doesn’t happen a millisecond, or a nanosecond afterwards, it is contemporaneous.

There are a host of mundane examples in games as well. When a check reaches the far side of the board, it doesn’t reside there for some period of time before becoming a king. It is instantaneously a king. It, of course, takes us time to put the other checker on top, but that doesn’t change the fact that no time is necessary for the action of becoming a king in checkers.

When I consider nearly 100% of the entire universe (manifold thingy and apparently one hell of a "big" place) is incompatible with our type of life, it seems pretty self evident!

Why would the amount of livable space that we can occupy in 2018 be the correct metric here? Why that specific time period? Why that specific metric?

Doesn’t it seem warranted to consider a host of other factors if we grant that God would be a bit more complex than the average terrarium owner (who also considers a lot more than just livable space)?

Me:

" Originally Posted by Bel

So is there any reason that the could not be another universe (manifold thingy) with "time" that is separate from ours?"

You:

"As a pure hypothetical? Sure. Of course it couldn’t, by definition, have any interaction with our universe."

How could you possibly come to that conclusion given what I said?!?!? JK, that is a reasonable interpretation of my clumsy language. Let me clarify a bit. When I was defining the manifold I wasn’t saying that “nothing” could interact with it, I was defining it as the dimensional set that is not causally related to another dimensional set. IE it is the set of dimensions (maybe even a multi-verse) whose dimensions are causally related.

That last part can be a bit unintuitive, so let me offer an example. Think of a graph. You have an X axis and a Y axis. If you went out to X=5 and drew a line straight up you would be defining the Y axis dimension at X=5. X and Y are causally related at that point. Those two dimensions interact with each other. That isn’t to say that nothing else could interact with the graph (you certain did in drawing the line), but it doesn’t mean that you are part of those dimensional sets. You aren’t part of the X/Y axis, but you can interact with them.

[Belthazor]

As my favorite detective was want to say,

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

And I have agreed this a great point. For our conversation here, I may even give in and say you are correct.

Though I feel "we" just don't have enough of the truth yet to make that judgement. IOW, it still seems some of the important pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

I know I will get the lecture about that not being particularly justifiable itself, but after all, that is actually what it takes to convince someone of the truth. I saw Siegfried and Roy make a really cool tiger disappear. I was on stage with 11 other people in Vegas while a hypnotist did some incredible things, so close I could touch them while it happened.

Even though I saw (and could even touch) these things for myself as they happened, I still couldn't believe it was all true. Cause part of the truth was missing....

---------- Post added at 06:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

Sorry, I realize my earlier answers weren’t quite as clear as they should have been.

We have a large set of experiments that validate our predictions of gravity’s effect given mass (IE how fast the apple should start falling, etc.).

Hmmm. Again, Newtonian physics works pretty well, but it has limitations. GR and QM also work pretty darn good, yet both have limitations, yes?
We don't yet have that theory that works all the time do we?

-------

I am going to respond in parts as time allows, but will get to your whole post.

[futureboy]

So..no?

I've already clarified my statement that you're trying to manipulate here to avoid your burden of proof:
Do they give out Nobel prizes for pointing out the definitions/usages of words? Because that's all I'm doing. All we observe as existing does so within spacetime - hence the meaning of "existence" being necessarily temporal and physical. You claim that something can exist outside it. Support or retract that claim.

All I'm saying is that we have no evidence of something existing outside our spacetime, so your claim that something can exist outside is requires support.

I'm not claiming that it's possible or impossible for things to exist outside of our spacetime, I'm saying that you need to support your claim that it's possible for things to exist outside of our spacetime. Stop trying to shirk the burden of proof and support your claim. Or, better yet, leave the scientisting to the scientists!

Further, the position that our understanding of "existence" is by definition necessarily spatial & temporal is supported by the lack of the term existence being applied without involving the temporal dimension or quality, from your own source, which I pointed out in my last post. Here it is again:

==========================
You'll have to provide the specific statements in that paper where the term "exist" or "existence" is applied without involving the temporal dimension or quality. On the contrary, some quick browsing finds just the opposite in the first few pages:

1. Abstract: "we show how the example of a multiverse consisting of a vast classical spacetime containing many pocket universes having different values of the fundamental constants arises".
2. P.15: "Quantum multiverses of the universe necessarily include alternative histories of cosmological spacetime"
3. P.16: "This is a very simple model that illustrates how a quantum multiverse of classical spacetime geometries emerges"
4. P.19: "The main contribution of this model to our exposition is to illustrate in a simple way how quantum multiverses of classical histories (including spacetime geometry) are predicted"

#1 is especially interesting since it supports different possible fundamental constants, which is an issue for FTA. Indeed, the possibility of a multitude of different constants is seriously considered throughout the paper.
But that's inevitably and always the case with theists making god-of-the-gaps arguments; you scour the available theories, models, and papers, for even the smallest piece of wording which you can try to twist into tenuous (and worse, non-exclusive) support for your beliefs, disregarding entire adjacent positions of those same sources which contradict your beliefs.

It's a shame I have to bring this up again, but you really should leave the scientisting to the scientists, since that's the only way we'll get to the bottom of this, if that's even what you want to do (doubtful).
==========================

So again, your assertion that it's possible for something to exist outside of spacetime is unsupported, and KCA fails for that reason.

Do you have a license access to any of the major physics journals like “Journal of Physics A-Mathematical and Theoretical” or “Physical Review A” or “Physics Today?” I assumed you didn’t and as such wouldn’t be able to read the actual text of the links I was submitting. Thus I posted their ArXiv sourced articles so that you could review them. If you’d rather I only post the gated versions, I would be happy to.

If you are claiming that the specific papers you linked have been peer reviewed in reputable publications, then please support that. In any case, this doesn't address the other issue I pointed out:
Needless to say, virtually none of the serious physicists from which you offer cherry-picked support for your arguments actually agree with any of your conclusions such that refuting your arguments would mean that they're wrong.

When you said, as you did earlier in this thread, that the act of transforming wood into a chair is not the act of creation because the chair isn’t really an independent object distinct from the wood, you did forward a pretty radical ontology.

It would be a radical ontology, if that was actually the point I was making, which it wasn't. The issue I pointed out with your wood-chair example was that it's not an example of creatio ex nihilo, which would be required for KCA.

To your second point, we do have exactly that, virtual particles (see below). But we also have quantum tunneling (ie Turok’s model). Which brings me to a pretty dramatic (and unsupported) claim you’ve made. Can you support that no models involve matter creation at t~0? How does Turok describe quantum tunneling then?

Again, virtual particles take place in an existing universe when existing particles interact. This is nothing like the creatio ex nihilo required for KCA.
And you've yet again tried to shift the burden of proof regarding the models involving matter creation at t~0.
Here is your original statement:
How are all models that involve a matter creating expansion at t~0 (IE all of them essentially) inherently flawed

Please support that essentially all models involve actual matter creation of the kind which doesn't take place in an existing universe with existing matter (creatio ex nihilo). To my knowledge, there aren't any because of our inability to make valid observations about what happened before Planck time.

Wait, fluctuations in the what? That you are referencing an EM field for virtual particles seems to indicate that there was a breakdown in communication or understanding somewhere. EM fields are not the cause of virtual particles.

I never said that EM fields were the cause, and it's a fairly common understanding of virtual particles. Here's Prof. Strassler's explanation:

Virtual Particles: What are they?
The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle.
...
Two electrons approach each other; they generate a disturbance in the electromagnetic field (the photon field); this disturbance pushes them apart, and their paths are bent outward. One says they "exchange virtual photons", but this is just jargon.

From: https://profmattstrassler.com/articl...what-are-they/

But whatever is the cause is beside the point, which is that virtual particles are observed (not directly, just their effects) taking place in and existing universe in interactions between existing matter, and therefore cannot serve as support for your claim regarding creatio ex nihilo which is required for KCA.

One, that your objection using the First Law of Thermodynamics is incorrect (in fact it is almost as if you didn’t read the post since they directly address that concern). These actions do, indeed violate the First Law and that is ok. Why? Because the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle covers the net variation of total energy.

Again, it all takes place within spacetime in an existing universe, dude. Further, the kind of change in net energy covered by the uncertainty principle is a far cry from the kind of permanent and massive net change in energy required for KCA. So no, virtual particles don't support that.
I'll also point out that none of the sources you quote here share your conclusions about what virtual particles mean regarding KCA.
You're yet again just scouring the available theories, models, and papers, for even the smallest piece of wording which you can try to twist into tenuous (and worse, non-exclusive) support for your beliefs, disregarding entire adjacent positions of those same sources which contradict your beliefs.

I’ve seen this mentioned several times, but you don’t seem to have indicated thoroughly how it does that.

Something "designed" by definition implies it has a designer and purpose: "Design - to do or plan something with a specific purpose."

It is logically possible because it isn’t internally incoherent

No, something is logically possible if we are "able to imagine the proposal – either in literal images, or in symbolic representation (i.e., math, words, or formal language) – without experiencing any internal contradiction." You have not demonstrated that your proposal is logically possible, since you have not expressed the proposal of a cosmic designer in any way which is coherent.

In any case, there's nothing about the MECE framework which stipulates that the collectively exhaustive items must be considered as all the "logically possible" explanations in the sense you are attempting to use here.

So again, FT is rejected because you have not demonstrated that design is actually possible, and it's rejected again because you have not demonstrated that there is a purpose, let alone that we are the purpose.

Really, edge.org? Hardly a reliable source.

edge.org is the source of the interview. Dr. Neil Turok is the source of the information regarding the model. Questioning edge.org is merely question whether the interview took place, unless you're actually questioning whether edge.org accurately represented Dr. Neil Turok's statements.

Regardless, this interview was from 2007. A lot has happened since then, including the measurement of gravity waves (which observationally disagree with Turok’s prediction)

If you're referring to the findings from BICEP2 and the bet between Hawking and Turok, then I'm afraid you're mistaken, as the BICEP2 results were questionable from the beginning, and have since been overturned by data from the Planck satellite which supports Turok's model.

So yeah, a lot has happened since then, none of which lends any credence whatsoever to any Xtian theistic claims. Let's leave the scientisting to the scientists, shall we? That's the only way we'll get to the bottom of this.

and the discovery that the universe is accelerating, not decelerating as Turok’s model predicts.

Turok's model predicts an end to the acceleration, not that there would not be any acceleration. This is detailed in nearly every published version of his model.

There is a reason that you can’t find Turok touting his model over the last year or so (at least not with other physicists).

The reason could likely be that he's currently focusing on other things, such as running the Perimiter Institute. But he doesn't really need to tout the model - his papers on the cyclic model haven been cited by other physicists numerous times over the past years - recently, too, and he's regularly mentioned in articles about competing models of the universe.

In any case, none of what you've presented actually refutes his model - you're grasping at straws. But we could just as easily choose to reject his model and any/all cyclic models as false for the sake of argument, and you'd still be no closer to demonstrating that the universe began to exist ex nihilo, let alone any other claims about Xtian theism.

And for fun, you can hear Turok concede that his model is not observationally relevant in a panel discussion with Lawrence Krauss here: https://www.worldsciencefestival.com...ting-universe/

I'm interested in the statements he made which you think are a concession that his model has failed because of some specific observations. Could you provide the time-stamp?

On a side note, Turok’s model also requires us to accept two dubious claims. 1) That a finite universe can grow to an infinite universe, which as discussed above violates basic mathematical and logical precepts. 2) That an infinite universe is indistinguishable from a singularity. IE he smuggles in Penrose’s rejected premise that “unknowingly big” is the same thing as “unknowingly small."

Please leave the scientisting to the scientists.

[Belthazor]

Why? And why would we measure that at our current point in technological development? Why does the fact that we currently don’t live on most of the planet (and on a shrinking portion of it) have anything to do with inferring God’s plans?

Huh? I said nothing like this.
This point in context:
The universe (manifold thingy) is quite large, and apparently virtually 100% of it is deadly to humans, save for Earth. Even here, most of the planet is deadly to humans. You can't climb Everest without your brain swelling.

What % of the universe is deadly (or whatever term you like). Obviously 99.9999999
Your pretty quick on the math, but have refused to answer this question....

---------- Post added at 05:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------

You asked if it was possible for anything to live “forever.” My response was that it wasn’t logically incoherent so the fact that the conclusion would be eternal didn’t seem to be a logical incongruity. I’m not really sure where we stand on that point now :-)

You are attempting to show that it is not impossible. Why not try to show it is possible?

---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

That was literally the point of Heisenberg’s cat. The cat exists in both states simultaneously.

(how does a cat "exist" if it's dead)
Actually, as we have discussed, the cat is not really in both states. In reality, the cat is one or the other and opening the box is the confirmation of the state.
If the cat were in both states, opening the box would be the cause of the cat living/dying.

---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

How could you possibly come to that conclusion given what I said?!?!? JK, that is a reasonable interpretation of my clumsy language. Let me clarify a bit. When I was defining the manifold I wasn’t saying that “nothing” could interact with it, I was defining it as the dimensional set that is not causally related to another dimensional set. IE it is the set of dimensions (maybe even a multi-verse) whose dimensions are causally related.

That last part can be a bit unintuitive, so let me offer an example. Think of a graph. You have an X axis and a Y axis. If you went out to X=5 and drew a line straight up you would be defining the Y axis dimension at X=5. X and Y are causally related at that point. Those two dimensions interact with each other. That isn’t to say that nothing else could interact with the graph (you certain did in drawing the line), but it doesn’t mean that you are part of those dimensional sets. You aren’t part of the X/Y axis, but you can interact with them.

So there can be interactions between manifold thingy's, but other manifold thingy's can have dramatically different physical laws than our own. How can we predict what form these interactions might take?


What if our manifold thingy is just a black hole in another manifold thingy?[COLOR="Silver"]

[Squatch347]

Though I feel "we" just don't have enough of the truth yet to make that judgement. IOW, it still seems some of the important pieces of the puzzle are still missing.
…Even though I saw (and could even touch) these things for myself as they happened, I still couldn't believe it was all true. Cause part of the truth was missing....

I think that that is a fantastic point. What I think matters here is whether the remaining pieces of that puzzle are related to the point we are trying to feel confident about. You were rightly skeptical of S&R because the part of the truth you were missing was what was going on behind that curtain or sheet or whatever (whatever was happening while you were misdirected).
I’m not sure the same can be said of our scenario. The parts that are missing are certainly relevant to the overall picture, but they aren’t particularly relevant to the question of “is there a beginning.”
To use a different analogy, its like you’re missing the puzzle piece that completes one of the elves in santa’s workshop. The rest of the puzzle is complete though and you can still answer, with confidence, that santa’s belt is black.

Hmmm. Again, Newtonian physics works pretty well, but it has limitations. GR and QM also work pretty darn good, yet both have limitations, yes?

Yes, the answers predicted by both theories become increasingly different than observations the closer, in scale, you get to other theory’s domain. So as we go from baseball’s flight to bullet’s flight, to grain of sand’s flight, to atom’s flight, to quark’s movement we get a larger and larger error.
But what we were talking about is all the way on the other end of the spectrum, in movement of galaxy territory. That area is quite well within GR’s domain.
And GR is incredibly well tested experimentally. That is why, generally, scientists don’t find the observations of visible matter as particularly persuasive that GR is wrong. It is far more likely that the observations aren’t exhaustive of matter.

Huh? I said nothing like this.

The specific quote I was referring too was:

However, if the earth was "made" for us to live on, you would think we be able to live on more than such a small % of it ??

Even if we expand it to the entire universe, I don’t see how that changes my question much.
1) Why would we use that particular metric?
2) Why would we use our current technological development? Wouldn’t it be relevant what we can do in a thousand years? Why is right now the appropriate measuring time for God?
3) Why does the fact that we currently don’t live on most of the planet (and on a shrinking portion of it) have anything to do with inferring God’s plans? Especially since there are a lot of purposes those areas can and do provide that would suit things more in line with what Genesis is telling us.

You are attempting to show that it is not impossible. Why not try to show it is possible?

I did. By definition everything that is not impossible is possible.

Actually, as we have discussed, the cat is not really in both states. In reality, the cat is one or the other and opening the box is the confirmation of the state.

I’m not sure I remember discussing that. Especially given that it would be an incorrect interpretation of that thought experiment.
This is going to sound ridiculously unintuitive, which is why Schrodinger used it as an example (he was mocking Copenhagen QM before he eventually was converted) of how ridiculous Copenhagen QM is. But no, the cat is both alive and dead simultaneously, in a state known as superposition.

The radioactive decay is a random process, and there is no way to predict when it will happen. Physicists say the atom exists in a state known as a superposition—both decayed and not decayed at the same time.
Until the box is opened, an observer doesn't know whether the cat is alive or dead—because the cat's fate is intrinsically tied to whether or not the atom has decayed and the cat would, as Schrödinger put it, be "living and dead ... in equal parts" until it is observed.
…
"If you put the cat in the box, and if there's no way of saying what the cat is doing, you have to treat it as if it's doing all of the possible things—being living and dead—at the same time," explains Eric Martell, an associate professor of physics and astronomy at Millikin University. "If you try to make predictions and you assume you know the status of the cat, you're [probably] going to be wrong. If, on the other hand, you assume it's in a combination of all of the possible states that it can be, you'll be correct."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/...radox-science/
Which brings us back to the macro examples, pushing against a wall being one. We see relationships in the macro world that happen contemporaneously where cause and effect are not temporally separated.

So there can be interactions between manifold thingy's, but other manifold thingy's can have dramatically different physical laws than our own. How can we predict what form these interactions might take?

I’m not quite sure where the implication that the manifolds can interact comes from, can you specify? One of the definitions of the manifold is that it is causally unconnected to any other manifold.

All we observe as existing does so within spacetime - hence the meaning of "existence" being necessarily temporal and physical.

Whoa there. That is quite an intellectual leap. You went from the total of what we’ve observed to the total of things that are possible. Are you claiming that our observations cover the sum total of all logical possibility? If so, that is also a bold claim that would need to be supported.

I'm not claiming that it's possible or impossible for things to exist outside of our spacetime

So are you retracting this claim then?

Existence is by definition necessarily temporal.

If you are claiming that the specific papers you linked have been peer reviewed in reputable publications, then please support that. In any case, this doesn't address the other issue I pointed out:
Needless to say, virtually none of the serious physicists from which you offer cherry-picked support for your arguments actually agree with any of your conclusions such that refuting your arguments would mean that they're wrong.

The arXiv reference generally lists the associated journal publication and DOI. Regardless, all of these are widely regarded physicists, so dismissing them on this without a material objection to the work is fallacious.

I know you believe that that is true, but that is a poor reading of the evidence presented. Generally the problem with your objection was that you cherry picked a single quote where the author was referring to a temporal aspect and took that for the whole paper. IE a hasty generalization fallacy. It also rests on your misunderstanding of the word “spacetime” which is a catch phrase for dimensional geometries, they don’t literally require a temporal dimension. But rather than elaborating on that, let’s deal with what the paper says. My comments in italics

Paper 1:

Classical behavior is not a given in a quantum universe. It is a matter of quantum probabilities. A quantum system behaves classically when, in a suitable quantum multiverse of alternative histories, the probabilities are high for those histories exhibiting correlations in time governed by deterministic laws. The relevant probabilities follow from (H, Ψ). Classical spacetime emerges when the probabilities are high for spacetime geometries correlated in time by the Einstein equation…IE, a classical spacetime with a temporal dimension is not a given outcome of a quantum universe, so the “pocket universes” being created in this scenario don’t necessarily need to be temporal.
This section shows how pocket multiverses mentioned in the Introduction arise at various levels of coarse graining from the NBWF (Ψ) and a dynamical theory (H) based on a particular potential V (φ) like the one in Figure 3. This potential has three minima (vacua) — two true vacua A and B and one false vacuum F. We can say that the potential defines a landscape of vacua although there are only three here. As described in Section IV, (H, Ψ) predicts a one parameter ensemble of classical histories labeled by the value at which they start to roll down….We don’t live in the false vacuum devoid of matter. Rather we live in one of the bubbles of true vacuum, either one of type A or of type B. The kind of bubble we live in can be determined from observation…Notice here that Prof. Hartle is saying that the quantum universe the pocket universes is passed on fluctuates along a non-temporal dimension, φ
…
The potential on which this model is based is shown in Figure 6. It has many minima (vacua) K = 1, 2, · · · at values φK near which it is approximately V (φ) ≈ ΛK + 1 2 m2 K(φ − φK) 2 + · · · (7.1) for constants ΛK and mK — defining a landscape of vacuua… Notice here the equation governing the activity of the quantum multiverse contains no temporal component. This is just a slightly different point than above, but the equation is helpful because it explicitly doesn’t include a temporal dimension.
…
At the start of this paper we defined a multiverse as an ensemble of alternative possible situations only one of which is observed by us… a multiverse is a set of possible universes, not necessarily a classical spacetime.

Now importantly, your response to the other five papers seems to have conflated the two objections. You reference them in the same style as the paper above quoting the word spacetime. But these papers were evidence against your unsupported (and still unsupported) claim that the “physical constants of our universe are our conceptualizations of how we've observed our universe to function.”
So, contrary to your quote here, you’ve offered no evidence that any of the five papers presented don’t undermine your unsupported claim.

It would be a radical ontology, if that was actually the point I was making, which it wasn't. The issue I pointed out with your wood-chair example was that it's not an example of creatio ex nihilo, which would be required for KCA.

Well no, your point was that it was just “re-arranging matter” that here was no such separate identity as a chair. If you aren’t arguing that then your objection falls short because while the wood is re-arranged, there was no identity re-arrangement. There was nothing in the lumber that had an innate “chairness.” That kind of ontology hasn’t been popular, well really ever, but it is how popular culture imagines the middle ages. There was nothing in the identity of lumber that we re-arranged to make the identity of a chair.
I think what is happening is that you aren’t making a distinction between the identity of the chair and its underlying wood. You are saying that they are the same thing, which is a radical minimalist ontology.

Again, virtual particles take place in an existing universe when existing particles interact.

Again, nope. Virtual particles are not formed when particles interact. This comes on the heals of you saying that they are formed by fluctuations in the EM field. I would highly recommend a quick perusal of what virtual particles actually are. You seem to be objecting to them without any understanding of what they actually are. The quoted Gizmodo article is actually not a bad place to start.

And you've yet again tried to shift the burden of proof regarding the models involving matter creation at t~0.

I’m not attempting to shift the burden at all, the original claim is yours. Your taxicab fallacy of only going back to my quote not withstanding.
The quote you offer of mine is a response to your earlier claim that there are no examples of matter creation. I pointed out that Prof. Turok discusses quantum tunneling and dimensional creation interchangeably and provided a citation. You asserted that the KCA is incoherent because it invokes creation ex nihlio. I’m simply responding to that by pointing out that then means that Prof. Turok and all models that involve matter creation should likewise be incoherent.
I’m challenging you to support that implication. If you wish to drop it and accept that multiple cosmological models contain matter creation, and that fact doesn’t make them incoherent, we can drop that. But if you are going to insist that the KCA is incoherent for the same reason, you’ll need to offer support for why Prof. Turok is incorrect and, more broadly why quantum tunneling is incoherent.

I never said that EM fields were the cause, and it's a fairly common understanding of virtual particles.

Come on future, at least be intellectually honest and admit you misspoke. You said, and I quote here: “fluctuations/disturbances in existing electro-magnetic fields due to particle interaction within an existing universe…” Looking at the link you offered and the quotes you selected I get that you think you stumbled on some other explanation, but what has actually happened is that you just dealt with a method I already discussed. Remember when I discussed the Casmiri effect earlier? That’s the experiment that validated this method of virtual particle creation.
Your quotation of Prof. Strassler is, likewise a bit disingenuous. Especially since it seems to imply that Prof. Strassler doesn’t understand the duality nature of matter which I’m highly confident he does, though you may not if you haven’t taken a QM class. Or that he somehow doesn’t understand that in QM particles (like electrons) are actually probability waves anyway.
Here are the first quote in context:

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

You then seem to miss that the rest of his essay is an example of virtual particles being created (primarily through photon exchange) via particle interactions. But nowhere does he state or imply that they are created by the EM field as you imply, or that they must rely on particle interactions. Notice that section I underlined that you conveniently left out? Virtual particles can be created by other fields as well, in fact that is the majority of their creation if QM is accurate. The disturbance he is quoting is not, in those cases, comes from the underlying quantum irregularity of our universe below Planck length. The initial response here discusses the difference between the two methods: https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...rticles.75916/

Both methods have been experimentally confirmed. The exchange method via the Casimiri effect and the quantum probability method (sometimes called quantum foam) via the Muon g-2 experiment. https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archi...lReadmore.html

Both methods also support my initial assertion of matter creation since neither method represents a “transition of matter” as you initially claimed. Both methods represent a net increase in matter in the universe, even if for just a short period. Your argument that because there is an existing universe this doesn’t count hasn’t been supported. I’m not arguing that the universe began from literally nothing with no existing context. I’m arguing that it had an initial cause. Just as virtual particles have a cause and don’t represent simple transitions between matter.

Again, it all takes place within spacetime in an existing universe, dude. Further, the kind of change in net energy covered by the uncertainty principle is a far cry from the kind of permanent and massive net change in energy required for KCA.

So you are retracting your objection to virtual particles based on the First Law of Thermodynamics and replacing it with this odd “it isn’t permanent though” objection? Ok. Well, I’m glad we were able to dismiss that first unwarranted objection, now lets deal with the next one. First, we can note that it is completely irrelevant to the argument. No one is saying that the example is completely identical to what it is supporting, the question is whether the differences are materially relevant. You’ve given us no reason except a bare assertion fallacy to assume that duration is a materially relevant criteria.
What’s more, you missed in the quoted article where they talk about exactly this concept:

A variant of this may also have happened in the very early universe. In the tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, particles pairs were created constantly. But during the period of "Inflation" (which I'd love to talk about in a future column, if only somebody would ask), the universe exploded in size, and particles which were initially near one another quickly became separated by such huge distances that they couldn't possibly recombine.

https://io9.gizmodo.com/5731463/are-...icles-for-real (same link as earlier).
Before you get distressed about whether this is how it actually happened or not, I’ll point out that that isn’t relevant either. The point here is that two physicists are directly countering your objection by pointing out that the quantum foam could create long term matter. That this is physically possible means that virtual particles serve as an example of matter creation in the eyes of actual physicists.

Something "designed" by definition implies it has a designer and purpose: "Design - to do or plan something with a specific purpose."

How is it “snuck in” since it is literally in the term? Would we also say that “chance” sneaks in probability or “necessity” sneaks in physical law? The objection just doesn’t make any sense.
If you came upon a dead body and concluded that it could only have happened by suicide, natural causes, or homicide, you wouldn’t object to homicide being an option because it “sneaks” in a murderer.

No, something is logically possible if we are "able to imagine the proposal – either in literal images, or in symbolic representation (i.e., math, words, or formal language) – without experiencing any internal contradiction."

This is literally what I said. An idea that can be expressed that isn’t internally incoherent. IE it doesn’t express an internal contradiction. If you want to object to its internal coherence by showing that it is logically incoherent please do; but there is nothing structurally contradictory about a first cause argument.

In any case, there's nothing about the MECE framework which stipulates that the collectively exhaustive items must be considered as all the "logically possible" explanations in the sense you are attempting to use here.

This statement appears to be a nonsequitor, ie incoherent. How can a list be both “collectively exhaustive” and not contain “all logically possible items?” Those two phrases literally mean the same thing.

edge.org is the source of the interview. Dr. Neil Turok is the source of the information regarding the model. Questioning edge.org is merely question whether the interview took place, unless you're actually questioning whether edge.org accurately represented Dr. Neil Turok's statements.

As well as the source of the editing and questions right? Surely you aren’t implying that media sources are neutral arbiters of content.

If you're referring to the findings from BICEP2 and the bet between Hawking and Turok, then I'm afraid you're mistaken, as the BICEP2 results were questionable from the beginning, and have since been overturned by data from the Planck satellite which supports Turok's model.

I wasn’t no, but you are getting closer to modern findings. My last response was based on the findings that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating. BICEP2 is about gravitational waves. Those are not the same thing at all.
My response was based on several papers, one here (https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08244) that show a variety of observations from supernova data to gamma-ray bursts support the acceleration hypothesis well beyond a statistical significance (4.56 sigma in fact, so something like 99.99987 percent certain).
I also added this paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.08972) which details a separate set of evidence and finds: “Analyzing the Joint Light-curve Analysis supernova sample, we find 4.2σ evidence for acceleration with SNe Ia alone, and 11.2σ in a flat universe. With our improved supernova analysis and by not rejecting all other cosmological constraints, we find that acceleration is quite secure.”

As for gravitational waves though, the represent another reason to reject Turok’s cyclical models (well all cyclical models really since they share this feature). BICEP2 was from January 2010 to December 2012. To be accurate, the results were never questioned (Turok mentions that in the video below), it was the interpretation of the results. The problem with the objections to its interpretation was that they were confirmed by several detectors later. Advanced Virgo in Italy and LIGO in the US detected confirming evidence which has been widely accepted in 2016-2017. https://www.sciencealert.com/new-lig...news-sept-2017
LIGO is not a vulnerable to interpretation criticisms like BICEP2 because it was a collaboration of physicists for publication, relying on 1,000 authors, all of whom reviewed the raw data and synthesized the results. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/s...-einstein.html
Turok has since conceded the bet and thus conceded his cyclical model.

Prof Neil Turok, director the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics at Waterloo in Canada, and a former research colleague of Prof Stephen Hawking, called the discovery “the real deal, one of those breakthrough moments in science”…
“Einstein, when he came to write down his theory of gravity, his two heroes were Faraday and Maxwell,” said Turok. “He tried to write down laws of the gravitational field and he wasn’t in the least surprised to discover that his predictions had waves, gravitational waves.”
The Ligo discovery signals a new era in astronomy, he said.
“Just think of radio waves, when radio waves were discovered we learned to communicate with them. Mobile communication is entirely reliant on radio waves. For astronomy, radio observations have probably told us more than anything else about the structure of the universe. Now we have gravitational waves we are going to have a whole new picture of the universe, of the stuff that doesn’t emit light – dark matter, black holes,” he said.
“For me the most exciting thing is we will literally be able to see the big bang. Using electromagnetic waves we cannot see further back than 400,000 years after the big bang. The early universe was opaque to light. It is not opaque to gravitational waves. It is completely transparent.
“So literally, by gathering gravitational waves we will be able to see exactly what happened at the initial singularity. The most weird and wonderful prediction of Einstein’s theory was that everything came out of a single event: the big bang singularity. And we will be able to see what happened.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...of-the-century

“The LIGO measurement is a spectacular confirmation of not just one, but two of the key predictions of Einstein’s theory of gravity: the existence of gravitational waves and black holes,” Turok said.

https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ne...tronomy-begins

So given the above, and the requirement for there to be no gravitational waves in Turok’s model (see the video where he explicitly says this), I’m assuming we can safely put this one to bed?

Turok's model predicts an end to the acceleration, not that there would not be any acceleration. This is detailed in nearly every published version of his model.

This response seems to confuse velocity and acceleration. The only point of acceleration in Turok’s model is during the collapse. The universe begins collapsing faster and faster until it “bounces” out at the same velocity it had when it collapsed. As it expands it slows until an apogee, where it begins collapsing again and accelerating. Since we know that we aren’t in the collapse phase (red-shifting), we know that any detection that the velocity of the expansion is accelerating would invalidate Turok’s model.

I'm interested in the statements he made which you think are a concession that his model has failed because of some specific observations. Could you provide the time-stamp?

Sure, though I don’t envy you having to listen to Krauss’ insufferable grandstanding. The discussion begins here: https://yout.be/pcKdA2-W0X0?t=4095 (Roughly 1:09:00). Listen to when Krauss and Turok begin talking about what kind of observations will confirm Turok’s updated model (this is a new kind of cyclical model which I’ll discuss a bit below) at the end and when Turok says that there aren’t any, that it will stand and fall on pure mathematical validation. That means, by definition, his model isn’t observationally relevant. Thus it isn’t empirically verifiable. Thus really isn’t a scientific model.
Interestingly, and they didn’t go into it much, but you’ll notice that he does tell Krauss that his model requires no gravitational waves. Given LIGO and other observations, its hard to argue that Turok’s model is relevant as an applicable model of this universe anymore.
To elaborate a bit more on what Turok is proposing in that video. To save his cyclical model he is proposing something pretty dramatic. Look at the faces of the other physicists on the panel when he starts talking about it. They all greet it with a bemused skepticism. What he says is that he is predicting a scientific revolution that will overturn both relativities and quantum mechanics by showing us that scale isn’t actually a thing in our universe. IE there isn’t really a difference between a meter and a lightyear. I honestly am not familiar enough with what he is proposing to detail other flaws and there isn’t really much out there dealing with it; probably because it was ruled out with LIGO and probably because most physicists don’t see a lot of career advancement arguing about whether the single most empirically accurate model every produced (general relativity) is fundamentally wrong.

Please leave the scientisting to the scientists.

That you think these are my objections makes me wonder where you are getting your information from. These are widely known objections in the field and come from other published works and in letters from physicists, they aren’t mine by any stretch.
Nor does that blatant appeal to authority fallacy work here. If you don’t have an answer to an objection, please refrain from substituting a personal insult for a material response.
Nor do either of these premises really involve some complex understanding of tensor matrices, spatial geometry, or even differential equations. IE 1) That a finite universe can grow to an infinite universe, which as discussed above violates basic mathematical and logical precepts. 2) That an infinite universe is indistinguishable from a singularity. IE he smuggles in Penrose’s rejected premise that “unknowingly big” is the same thing as “unknowingly small.”
Notice that second one is also the same objection he raised in the video which Krauss impolitely sneers at and which causes the rest of the panel to look at him askance.

1. They don't support theism.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to define theism in a sense that you meant it in the OP. The arguments presented pretty clearly support a broad based theism as I understand the term, but you seem to be laboring under some other definition.

Yes, therefore your objection as stated in post #422 is absurd.

Here it is again:

"iterative processes can only produce potential infinites, not actual infinites. It would be like counting to infinity. You can in theory do that, but you will never actually get to infinity."

How? My point in post 422 (http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post560185) to Mican was that an iterative process, like counting, cannot produce an actual, completed infinite set. Which is also what I’m saying above:

the process of counting and a complete set of infinity are absurd

IE a process like counting cannot produce an infinite set.

It isn’t really clear what you are arguing here. Are you saying it is possible to use an iterative process to produce an actual infinite set?