(April 12, 2016 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
2. The universe began to exist
...

There's a problem right there. We don't actually know that the universe "began" to exist.

(April 12, 2016 at 10:13 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote: ...
2. The universe began to exist
...

There's a problem right there. We don't actually know that the universe "began" to exist.

You are right, we do not "know". But the point is that it seems it did under most theories developed from our knowledge of physics. >50%

Indeed. No we don't. Total speculation.

And trying to apply rules within reality to reality itself is the fallacy of composition.

The logic is bullshit. The premises are speculative. It's a joke.

(April 12, 2016 at 10:19 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 10:13 am)LostLocke Wrote: There's a problem right there. We don't actually know that the universe "began" to exist.

You are right, we do not "know". But the point is that it seems it did under most theories developed from our knowledge of physics. >50%

Not really. We can trace it back to the beginning of its current state, but that still gives us no idea if it really "began'.
Just a heads up, the singularity and the 'big bang' are not the "beginning to exist" of the universe.

Oh yes. We're missing the part where WLC jumps from this bland, deistic "God" to his own personal storybook based one, with no justification.

(April 12, 2016 at 10:09 am)robvalue Wrote: It's more likely true than its negation?

You're just making things up. This is pointless. You can't possibly know that it's more likely true than not with regard to all unobserved reality, and to the fabric of reality itself.

This is a waste of time.

Why not? Why are scientist spending billions on examining what happened at the beginning of our universe? Because they can't know anymore than they do? Is there an imaginary line between what we know now and what we may know in the future and only then can we reason out the ramifications? 

You are confusing inductive reasoning with deductive reasoning.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning 

"Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given.[1]

Many dictionaries define inductive reasoning as reasoning that derives general principles from specific observations, though some sources disagree with this usage.[2]

The philosophical definition of inductive reasoning is more nuanced than simple progression from particular/individual instances to broader generalizations. Rather, the premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it. "

(April 12, 2016 at 10:23 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 10:19 am)SteveII Wrote: You are right, we do not "know". But the point is that it seems it did under most theories developed from our knowledge of physics. >50%

Not really. We can trace it back to the beginning of its current state, but that still gives us no idea if it really "began'.
Just a heads up, the singularity and the 'big bang' are not the "beginning to exist" of the universe.

And what is the singularity? My understanding is that it is a mathematical idealization and not a physical entity. It is a boundary point. Metaphysically equivalent to nothing.

(April 12, 2016 at 8:41 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 2:25 am)robvalue Wrote: The whole truth of the conclusion rests entirely on the premises being entirely accurate, because that's all it's built on. If one of the premises is wrong for just one tiny area of reality, or if they don't apply to reality itself, or if there are any other premises which may in any way alter the conclusion, the whole thing is completely flawed. There is no way to assess just how off-course this takes it. It's not a case of "how close" they might be, it rests on complete accuracy. Unlike science, where the suitability of the premises can be tested by making predictions. These arguments without evidence produce a blind, useless result.

How exactly do you calculate the probability that the premises are totally accurate, for all of our reality and beyond, and that no relevant premises have been excluded? I'd estimate it at 0%. Can you produce a calculation that says otherwise?

That does not make the argument invalid. 

My understanding of assigning probability to an inductive argument is looking at the relationship of the probability of the premises and the conclusion. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)

Assign a probability to each premise and the conclusion's probability cannot be lower than the lowest of the premises. It can be higher. There are only two of them so it is not all that complex. Since each premise is reasoned out and defeaters for them seem to be at least less plausible, the conclusion that the universe has a timeless, powerful, transcendent cause seems to also be > 50%. 

I am not saying this is 100% proof for God. Only saying that it supports the concept of the God of the Bible.

Both #1 and #2 are debatable.

(April 12, 2016 at 11:55 am)SteveII Wrote:

(April 12, 2016 at 10:23 am)LostLocke Wrote: Not really. We can trace it back to the beginning of its current state, but that still gives us no idea if it really "began'.
Just a heads up, the singularity and the 'big bang' are not the "beginning to exist" of the universe.

And what is the singularity? My understanding is that it is a mathematical idealization and not a physical entity. It is a boundary point. Metaphysically equivalent to nothing.

You're simply trying to explain one unknown ("the origin of the Cosmos") with an even bigger unknown ("god").  Instead of saving that god is a necessary being who has always existed, why not say that Nature has a foundational existence which is "necessary" and therefore uncaused.  Why not say that abstract objects, which are eternal, created the Cosmos?

I would love to see a credible citation that states "The probability that our reality began to exist is above 50%".

I would be very surprised. But I'm always happy to be corrected. As far as I know, no one is in a position to perform such a calculation with any accuracy. Even if it did begin to exist, just announcing that it must have "a cause" is speculation too, however you're using the word. It's a word that can mean many things. No one knows. I find it astonishing how people think they know more than the expert scientists who study this stuff for a living. Again, trying to apply observations within our reality to reality itself is the fallacy of composition. Some people just don't seem to care about this. Entities do not necessarily adopt all the qualities of their contents or component parts.

Cosmological rubbish garbage nonsense fuck-brigade bastards. It's so totally broken and pointless. Even if you grant the whole thing, it's of no consequence. An "uncaused cause" could be almost anything. At the very best, the whole thing is a tautology of definition based on speculative premises. Well done.

Also, I'm sick of people saying, "God created the universe". If the universe is everything that exists, then either God created himself or God doesn't exist. If the universe isn't everything that exists, and there's a bit of other stuff too, then continuing with this language to imply "god made everything" is an equivocation. This is why I prefer to say "Our reality". It allows for there to be other things to exist, or not, whatever the case may be.