My guess as to his source, if not Hovind directly (and who wants to admit that anyway) would be those dog-awful Chick tracts. Specifically "Big Daddy", which cites a certain 'Dr Dino"...

(February 12, 2015 at 10:26 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 12, 2015 at 9:19 pm)YGninja Wrote: After being spoken to about it? So you admitted it once someone sussed you, is that what you're saying? You know that the most read post in any threat will be the OP. What you are doing is feeding a myth atheists propagate about Christianity and Christians.

Oh, fuck off, you legalistic little shit.

I dont consider it necessary to further argue this point, your position is indefensible.

Quote:

Quote:You avoided the point by making a counter claim that the premise implies such a thing as something which exists uncaused. This is what you object to, but not the premise itself, apparently, which you still havn't addressed.

I addressed it last time, that we haven't seen anything beginning to exist at all. And the first time, for that matter; it's either a distinction without a difference, if you're insisting that it doesn't imply the existence of a secondary category, or it's an unjustified assertion if it does. So which is it? Is the premise pointless, or unjustified?

And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion. Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist, to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

Quote:Oh, and also? The premise is itself an assertion, since it doesn't establish that everything that begins to exist has a cause. And it's arguably a false assertion anyway, since virtual particles come into existence without a cause.

Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'. As Theoretical Physicist David Albert writes:

“[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

Quote:

Quote:As for your objection, it has no grounds because you've made no case for an infinite regression. If you hold that nothing can exist uncaused, you need to make that case. If you can't make a case for infinite regression, something must exist uncaused.

False dichotomy: simply demanding that only two categories exist doesn't make it so. Again, nor is your unjustified assertion the default simply because you say so. Do you know anything at all about how logic and argumentation work?

"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out. There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.

Quote:

Quote:Absolutely, I began to exist, you began to exist, a tree began to exist, any sound begins to exist, any feeling begins to exist, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe began to exist, and with it all matter and energy. You've not answered the question though, to describe why i should believe anything can begin to exist without a cause.

Oh, and now you're not listening.

I listened very closely, you asked for "anything" which begins to exist.

Quote:You and I didn't begin to exist, we are new formats for pre-existing matter. Trees too. Sounds are pre-existing energy expressed via our vocal cords. Feelings are neurochemicals brought on by environmental stimuli, and both parts of that equation are pre-existing. The vast majority of scientists believe no such thing, in fact recently proposed models don't feature a beginning at all. Stop thinking your assertions become truth, just because you say them. We have never seen matter, energy, or anything come into existence from nothing.

It doesn't matter what "recently proposed models", are, unless they are subscribed to by more people who know what they're talking about, than the existing model which posits a beginning, and they aren't.

Quote:

Quote:I did, as above. Is your theory regarded by scientists are more likely than the universe having a beginning?

We get it, you misunderstand what scientists say. You don't need to keep repeating it.

I'll take this as forfeiture of the point. Your theories are fringe theories, which exist but have very little backing.

Quote:

Quote:We're dealing with likelihoods here, what is most reasonable. Its true that neither of us know, but we can discuss where the evidence leads - to a beginning of the universe and a necessarily existing prime mover.

Assertion, assertion, assertion. I know we're discussing this probabilistically, and the fact of the matter is, if you read the science with a view toward nuance and not simply confirming what you already believe, you will see that the "beginning" is little more than a beginning to expansion, and beyond that point our language and notions of physics aren't adequate to describe it.

So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.

Quote:

Quote:1: My claim was that the most ascribed models of the universe posit a beginning, and you've just confirmed it. I am not saying the universe certainly began, or that there aren't other possibilities, but we're looking at weights of evidence here and deciding what is most reasonable.

I confirmed your claim that the science generally ascribes a beginning to the universe, by providing evidence that shows that the scientist you cited in support of that claim doesn't think that his research supports the idea that the universe has a beginning? The scientist that you yourself said was renowned in the field? Why would you think that? Are you insane?

You are misrepresenting your own source now, which i have already fully quoted.

"I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

The theorem implies a beginning, but there are potential work-arounds. Again the evidence is in my favour.

Quote:

Quote:2: The chief result of the paper is irrelevant, as it was established to a large extent prior to its publishing that the universe -probably- began to exist.

So on the one hand you hold up Vilenkin as support for your position, but then you dismiss Vilenkin's actual work as irrelevant the moment that it disagrees with you? Hypocrite much?

What this amounts to is failure to distinquish relevance from irrelevance. The chief result of his paper isn't relevant to us, who are only concerned with a tiny part of it.

Quote:

Quote:3: Guth didn't "say" anything, he held a board up, if i remember correctly, and Craig was unable to look for clarification because it was prerecorded.

Guth's answer was unambiguous: "I don't know if the universe had a beginning." Regardless of the format it came in, you can hardly claim that this means that he does know that the universe had a beginning.

I never argued that he knows anything, this is just a bad attempt at a straw man. We're talking about likelihoods. His answer doesn't pertain to where the evidence is leading whatsoever. The only fact we can glean from it is that he isn't 100% certain, which we already knew.

Quote:

Quote:4: "[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

So you're basically saying you want us to take the simplistic route, rather than the accurate one that includes nuance? Says a lot about your position.

No, it says alot about your position that you recognise we are arguing about probabilities, yet you want to portray " there are ways to get around having a beginning" as a defeater to the fact that the scientific consensus thinks the universe "probably" had a beginning. Its hilarious, or deceitful, take your pick.

Quote:

Quote:5: You say "Vilenkin dismisses the idea that his views can be used to support the God conclusion", but again you are misrepresenting, because the actual quote from your own source is:

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian"

"Does not give much of an advantage", is far from "does not support the God conclusion". It would be more accurate to infer from that source that Vilenkin does indeed believe the findings support the God conclusion, as he implies it gives them a slight advantage, it merely shouldn't be taken as proof, aka confirmation of God.

"Is it proof of the existence of god? This view would be far too simplistic."

Why is it you're so insistent that we take the simplistic view on every issue?

Again, difference between evidence and proof. As i already stated, proof shows something is true, evidence argues that it might be true. All he is saying here, is that his findings don't prove Gods existence, he is not saying that they cannot be taken as evidence, and he even implies that it is evidence when he confirms " In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian". If you want to debate it'd be helpful if you knew the meanings of basic words you use.

Quote:

Quote:Excluding "before" then, you are saying "it created itself from itself" which is equally paradoxical.

Yeah, our temporal language isn't equipped to deal with a pre-expansion universe; stuff was weird back then, and essentially unpredictable to our current methods. We are going to reach weird paradoxical statements at every turn, simply by dint of the way our language and understanding of time work. That's why I'm pretty comfortable admitting that we just aren't there yet; unlike you, Craig and Kalam, I prefer to be honest about things.

Well i am not afraid to follow where the evidence leads and discuss things on a probabilistic basis. All you are making is another "science of the gaps" argument.

Quote:

Quote:Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse hypothesis, because he is a scientist. Science always assumes an infinite chain of cause and effect, although it has no grounds to do so.

So when you think you can twist the science to fit what you already believe, science is a trustworthy source of information, but the moment it diverges from what you believe, suddenly it's this baseless tangle of assumptions. So... essentially just whatever will get you to your pre-drawn conclusion, then?

How am i twisting science? You need to make the case before you make the assertion. You've offered no evidence for any kind of multiverse. The only evidence for it is predicated on apriori naturalism, which is why scientists acting as scientists, who are naturalists by profession and definition, take the appearance of fine tuning as evidence for the multiverse - because the only other reasonable explanation is not naturalistic. They therefor have no choice but to posit and infinite multiverse which would sooner or later spit out a universe such as ours. They're just doing their job, and their job does not include or assume the supernatural. This is the paradigm of science.

Quote:

Quote: You've not presented any evidence for the multiverse, because there isn't any. Fine tuning is taken to be evidence of a multiverse, if you have apriori concluded that naturalism is all that exists, as scientsits working in their field have to do.

Fine tuning doesn't exist, and I'm under no obligation to defend a position I don't hold, regardless of whatever simplistic binary you insist is a feature of all argumentation.

Hmm, you are copping out of this one too, then. The appearance of fine tuning does exist, hence the multiverse theory is imagined as a naturalistic explanation.

Quote:

Quote:WLC doesn't give this as an argument for Christian theism, it is used to assure Christians, the actual experience of something is such strong evidence in itself, it defeats other evidence. He is not actually claiming that if all the evidence says Christian theism is untrue, he would still be a Christian, because his experience is evidence, and in balance that evidence trumps purported evidence from other sources.

He claimed that if the basis of the christian religion, the claim that Jesus Christ was the son of god and resurrected from the dead, was proven to be false, he would still believe. He literally said that. The question was, if christianity was proven false, would you still be a christian, and Craig said he would. No amount of wriggling is going to change that fact: he said that if he could watch Jesus not rise from the dead (in other words, if he could experience that not happening) he would still believe that it did. Craig was asked a question about whether that experience would change his mind, and he said it wouldn't; I don't know why you're still trying to spin this as though Craig advocates for the accuracy of personal experience. His answer literally revolves around dismissing personal experience where it conflicts with his presuppositions.

He said "putative evidence", and explains his position thoroughly in the quotes i originally provided, which were provided for the very reason of clearing this issue up, and the false inferences people such as yourself have made. Your quotes are earlier, my quotes are clearing up the quotes which you gave.

Quote:

Quote:I agree that experience isn't necessarily true, but neither is exterior evidence. Look at all of the fraudulent evidence for evolution which has been presented over the years, starting from Haeckel's drawings to Piltdown man and onwards. Inner experience trumps such 'evidence', and rightly so.

Your claims with regards to evolution are bullshit, misrepresented and exaggerated by creationists in ways that do not match up with what actually happened.

Really, the guy fakes drawings of human embros to make the look like other creatures to support evolution, and im misrepresenting when i call it a fraud? You've provided no argument, just assertion so i don't feel the need to respond with much.

Piltdown Man - the greatest hoax in the history of science? Natural History Museum.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/scien...-man-hoax/

This was the hoax which was originally used to get evolution into schools. And even though it was shown to be a fraud, evolution remains.

Quote:

Quote:Your example doesn't have any point, yes, one experience must be wrong, but there are plenty of examples of contradictory scientific hypothesis, each with their own set of evidence, and one of those must be wrong too. You don't deny both sets of evidence merely because they are contradictory, likewise you cannot dismiss personal experience of all religions merely because not all of them can be true.

If one thing is right, and the other is wrong, we need some way to determine that. You can't appeal to personal experience to justify personal experience; if you did that you'd get a shouting match of a bunch of people essentially saying "because I said so!" over and over. The way you confirm personal experience is by confirming that it matches with objective reality, not just by re-asserting that the experience is what it is.

No, we're appealing to personal experience to justify personal belief. Its completely rational and you cannot make an argument showing otherwise without misrepresentation.

(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion. Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist, to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

Hence the equivocation of premise 1 in Craig's cosmological argument.

(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion. Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist, to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'.

Everything observed is to come into existence is either a rearrangement of previous stuff or not. You, sound, emotions are a rearrangement of stuff. If you want to claim that they're not, then you cannot claim particles coming on of the vacuum are just rearrangement of stuff. Craig (and your fallacy) is the equavication of the rearrangement of stuff and nothing bringing forth stuff.

Quote:"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out. There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.

Not knowing is the honest answer. Your jumping to conclusions by creating false dichotomy. The false dichotomy you're espousing is if science isn't explaining it therefore god did it.

Quote:So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.

You cannot use physics to posit a beginning if physics says it doesn't know. In fact, the physics says its current rules aren't valid at the singularity. The most resent attempts to reconcile the rules with the singularity shows no singularity actually exist.

(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: I dont consider it necessary to further argue this point, your position is indefensible.

"I'm going to run away now, but if I just say that your position is indefensible, that means I win! Nyah nyah!"

Oh, and that's not actually your position. I feel like I need to tell you that, because you're incapable of simple things like reading context clues and recognizing snark.

Quote:And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion.

Oh, that's funny: I wasn't aware that biological science maintains that whenever a woman is pregnant, she creates the matter that forms the baby from nothing. I thought that she developed the infant gradually over time using pre-existing materials gained from outside means; you'd think that there'd be a bigger deal being made of wombs breaking the laws of physics, but I guess it's just a secret only you know.

Quote: Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist,

Given that your argument is about the beginning of all matter, I'd say it's rather an important point.

Quote: to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

You don't have that consensus, as I've already provided quotes from cosmologists that you yourself said were big figures in the field stating otherwise. Beyond your misrepresentation of discussions of universal expansion, you have nothing more than bluff and bald assertions. Read the damn science more closely; it's not my problem that you refuse to read the things you claim to know about.

Quote:Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'. As Theoretical Physicist David Albert writes:

“[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

I believe that statement had two contentions in it, the first being that nowhere in the premise does the Kalam argument establish its positive assertion that everything began to exist. You haven't addressed this.

Quote:"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out.

It's intellectual honesty when we don't have enough information to make a solid conclusion. I get why that might be an alien idea to you. Again you simply demand that there are only two possibilities; how did you rule out a third path we haven't considered yet? Everything is unknown until the first time it's considered, after all.

Quote:There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.

So, in your mind the statement "You haven't made an adequate case for your position" is the same as "I make a competing claim"?

Quote:I listened very closely, you asked for "anything" which begins to exist.

And you even failed to provide that, unless you actually believe babies pop into existence from nowhere inside wombs, and aren't the product of a sperm and an egg.

Quote:It doesn't matter what "recently proposed models", are, unless they are subscribed to by more people who know what they're talking about, than the existing model which posits a beginning, and they aren't.

You're veering into argument from authority territory there, asserting that the number of scientists who accept a given claim is more important than the content of the claim itself. At one point, I'm sure you'd be arguing that Phlogiston is a good explanation for fire; after all, lots of scientists believed in that elemental spirit of fire!

Quote:I'll take this as forfeiture of the point. Your theories are fringe theories, which exist but have very little backing.

My theory that I don't know has very little backing? I didn't realize intellectual honesty required that much support.

As for "very little backing" against your position, apparently Vilenkin is only an important scientific figure when he agrees with you, eh? And all the other scientists whose work you've misinterpreted, with your characteristic theistic layman's ignorance?

Quote:So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.

If we don't know something, if the very basis of our descriptive tools is no longer adequate to describe something, it's not an argument from ignorance to admit that we don't know it. You're taking a point in time in which we can't yet describe what goes on, and saying "there was a beginning there." I'm admitting that if we can't even describe a thing, we don't know what happens there.

"We don't know, therefore beginning," is an argument from ignorance. "We don't know, therefore we don't know," is simply a statement of fact.

Quote:You are misrepresenting your own source now, which i have already fully quoted.

"I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

The theorem implies a beginning, but there are potential work-arounds. Again the evidence is in my favour.

Yes, you want to take the simplistic answer over subtleties, because the subtleties, the account that takes in all the evidence, doesn't agree with you. It's just like when you dismiss the chief conclusion of Vilenkin's own theorem, because it disagrees with you. This isn't about the actual evidence with you, just the bits you can cherry pick to suit the conclusion you came to before looking at any of it.

Quote:What this amounts to is failure to distinquish relevance from irrelevance. The chief result of his paper isn't relevant to us, who are only concerned with a tiny part of it.

The chief result of the paper, that we require new, as yet undeveloped physics models to describe what happens before the beginning of universal expansion, is directly relevant to a discussion of what happened prior to the expansion of the universe, and it beggars belief that you'd call that irrelevant.

Quote:I never argued that he knows anything, this is just a bad attempt at a straw man. We're talking about likelihoods. His answer doesn't pertain to where the evidence is leading whatsoever. The only fact we can glean from it is that he isn't 100% certain, which we already knew.

So when Guth goes on to answer "I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning," you're claiming that he still thinks he does? Did you even look at the debate we're talking about before you made up your mind on it?

Besides, the "I don't know" that Guth admits to is also reflected in his professional work; it's an acknowledgement that we don't have sufficient evidence to formulate an accurate calculation of probability. I don't know why you're so desperate for an answer, any answer, even a wrong answer, over just admitting that there isn't enough information yet.

Why are you prizing an answer for which the probability can't even be properly calculated yet? Why does that make you proud?

Quote:No, it says alot about your position that you recognise we are arguing about probabilities, yet you want to portray " there are ways to get around having a beginning" as a defeater to the fact that the scientific consensus thinks the universe "probably" had a beginning. Its hilarious, or deceitful, take your pick.

"If I assert a scientific consensus in my favor over and over, it totally exists!"

Oh, also not your position. I know you have trouble with that.

Quote:Again, difference between evidence and proof. As i already stated, proof shows something is true, evidence argues that it might be true. All he is saying here, is that his findings don't prove Gods existence, he is not saying that they cannot be taken as evidence, and he even implies that it is evidence when he confirms " In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian". If you want to debate it'd be helpful if you knew the meanings of basic words you use.

Well, in my defense, I don't often debate with evasive players of sophistic word games; I find them tiresome.

Quote:Well i am not afraid to follow where the evidence leads and discuss things on a probabilistic basis. All you are making is another "science of the gaps" argument.

But you aren't following the evidence, because you're actively misrepresenting the scientific models and outright dismissing whatever science doesn't fit with your conclusion. That may be christian science, but it's not the real kind.

Quote:How am i twisting science? You need to make the case before you make the assertion.

When you think Vilenkin is arguing for your position, he's alright as a source. When I pointed out that he's a proponent of multiverse theory, suddenly he's unreliable, and just making assumptions. That's twisting science.

More literally, you're also twisting the conclusions of Vilenkin's theorems, but I've discussed that already. I shouldn't need to rehash it.

Quote:You've offered no evidence for any kind of multiverse. The only evidence for it is predicated on apriori naturalism, which is why scientists acting as scientists, who are naturalists by profession and definition, take the appearance of fine tuning as evidence for the multiverse - because the only other reasonable explanation is not naturalistic. They therefor have no choice but to posit and infinite multiverse which would sooner or later spit out a universe such as ours. They're just doing their job, and their job does not include or assume the supernatural. This is the paradigm of science.

I'm not required to provide evidence for a multiverse, as I don't necessarily accept that. And you still need to tell us whether you consider science a reliable source of information or not, because you were quoting scientists a minute ago, but now you're dismissing the work of scientists because of some bias that you can't establish, because they disagree with you.

One or the other, dude. You can't pick and choose what science is good, and what isn't.

Quote:Hmm, you are copping out of this one too, then. The appearance of fine tuning does exist, hence the multiverse theory is imagined as a naturalistic explanation.

Fine tuning can only be a thing if you can first demonstrate that this particular universe, the appearance of life, whatever you're claiming the universe was fine tuned toward, was a goal state that it could have failed to reach. Without establishing that, this particular universe is no more or less likely than any other type of universe. You're assuming fine tuning without demonstrating that the universe was tuned at all.

Quote:He said "putative evidence", and explains his position thoroughly in the quotes i originally provided, which were provided for the very reason of clearing this issue up, and the false inferences people such as yourself have made. Your quotes are earlier, my quotes are clearing up the quotes which you gave.

"Putative evidence," like his own experience? Like not seeing Jesus rise? You keep scrabbling for the primacy of personal experience, but then you ignore this point every time it's brought up. Are you trying to hide that it's there?

Quote:Really, the guy fakes drawings of human embros to make the look like other creatures to support evolution, and im misrepresenting when i call it a fraud? You've provided no argument, just assertion so i don't feel the need to respond with much.

Aww, you didn't watch the video before you disagreed with it, did you? Cute.

Haeckel's drawings, and his theories about embryonic development, were later completely vindicated by actual photographs of developing human embryos. This claim you make that his drawings were faked completely misses the part where they turned out to be accurate.

Quote:Piltdown Man - the greatest hoax in the history of science? Natural History Museum.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/scien...-man-hoax/

Which, as the video explained, did not fool the scientific community, and once the tools were developed that could demonstrate that Piltdown was fraudulent, it was the scientific community that labelled it as such.

Quote:This was the hoax which was originally used to get evolution into schools. And even though it was shown to be a fraud, evolution remains.

Evolution remains because of all the other pieces of fossil evidence that have come to light prior to Piltdown and since. Not to mention the genetic evidence, observation both in the lab and out, and many others. Your idea that an entire scientific theory should be thrown out because of a single fraud shows that you don't know much about science, or logic in general: the sky is red at sunset sometimes, does that mean the idea that it's blue in the daytime is a fraud?

Quote:No, we're appealing to personal experience to justify personal belief. Its completely rational and you cannot make an argument showing otherwise without misrepresentation.

I can too: if I pump you full of hallucinogens, you can see some weird shit. You could use your personal experience of your hallucinations to justify your belief that they were real, but objective reality proves you wrong. Gee, I guess personal experience isn't necessarily completely true, huh?

So, how do you go about telling the difference between a realistic personal experience, and one that isn't?

(February 16, 2015 at 11:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 16, 2015 at 4:38 pm)YGninja Wrote: I dont consider it necessary to further argue this point, your position is indefensible.

"I'm going to run away now, but if I just say that your position is indefensible, that means I win! Nyah nyah!"

You quoted him for saying something that he did not say. Strike 1. Your reason for quoting him on something he did not say, was to ridicule him. Strike 2. You should have just said "yes i misrepresented him, so what? It was not with the intent to mislead other people, it was just a jibe", that would've been great.

Quote:

Quote:And I refuted that point, we have seen everything begin to exist. Ourselves, every sound, every emotion.

Oh, that's funny: I wasn't aware that biological science maintains that whenever a woman is pregnant, she creates the matter that forms the baby from nothing. I thought that she developed the infant gradually over time using pre-existing materials gained from outside means; you'd think that there'd be a bigger deal being made of wombs breaking the laws of physics, but I guess it's just a secret only you know.

Did you ask for matter? You asked for "anything". Tell me, did you exist before you were born?? Did a sound exist before it sounded?

Quote:

Quote: Your only defense is that we havn't seen matter begin to exist,

Given that your argument is about the beginning of all matter, I'd say it's rather an important point.

What is matter? Matter is only a certain arrangement of energy, there isn't actually any 'stuff' no 'matter' what magnification you got on that microscope, hence it is really no different from a sound, or anything else which we observe begin to exist. There is no cause to postulate a new rule for matter, again you fail occums razor.

Quote:

Quote: to which i appeal to scientific consensus which promotes that matter began to exist at the beginning of the universe.

You don't have that consensus, as I've already provided quotes from cosmologists that you yourself said were big figures in the field stating otherwise. Beyond your misrepresentation of discussions of universal expansion, you have nothing more than bluff and bald assertions. Read the damn science more closely; it's not my problem that you refuse to read the things you claim to know about.

You've provided absolutely nothing except your own imagination that when a cosmologist says a beginning is inescapable, he isn't really meaning a beginning. I can provide dozens of sources refuting you, and refuting your idea that the universe existed eternally and then only suddenly exploded a finite time ago. Scientists have been through this; how could something explode having been stable for an eternity? If it were stable for an eternity why would it suddenly explode at a specific moment?

Quote:

Quote:Quantum vacuums aren't 'nothing'. As Theoretical Physicist David Albert writes:

“[V]acuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing."

I believe that statement had two contentions in it, the first being that nowhere in the premise does the Kalam argument establish its positive assertion that everything began to exist. You haven't addressed this.

I have addressed this multiple times: logically speaking you need an eternal prime mover, or an infinite regression - you've offered no other possibility and you have not defended an infinite regression, hence your objection has no grounds because the only thing which is left is that everything which begins has a cause. You attempted the tired "virtual particles come into existence without a cause" response which isn't true and is what was refuted in that quote.

Quote:

Quote:"Not knowing", isn't an alternative, it is not another possibility missing from the statement "you need a prime mover or an eternal regression", its a cop-out.

It's intellectual honesty when we don't have enough information to make a solid conclusion. I get why that might be an alien idea to you. Again you simply demand that there are only two possibilities; how did you rule out a third path we haven't considered yet? Everything is unknown until the first time it's considered, after all.

You claimed i had provided a false dichotomy:
"False dichotomy: simply demanding that only two categories exist doesn't make it so", but actually it is you with the false dichotomy; the fact that neither of us know is a given, and we've already established that neither of us can offer a "conclusion", we can only look at the subject probabilistically, but you refuse to when you can't win and play the "we just don't know, look at how intellectually honest i am", card.

Quote:

Quote:There is no false dichotomy here, just "science of the gaps" argumentation. We're talking about logical probability, neither of us know anything. You've provided no logical justification of your objection, which only works if you can make an argument for an eternal regression.

So, in your mind the statement "You haven't made an adequate case for your position" is the same as "I make a competing claim"?

You refuse to acknowledge probability, and imagine a third option that science hasn't discovered yet.

Quote:

Quote:I listened very closely, you asked for "anything" which begins to exist.

And you even failed to provide that, unless you actually believe babies pop into existence from nowhere inside wombs, and aren't the product of a sperm and an egg.

Do you believe that you existed before you were born? Do you believe a sound exists before it sounds?

Quote:

Quote:It doesn't matter what "recently proposed models", are, unless they are subscribed to by more people who know what they're talking about, than the existing model which posits a beginning, and they aren't.

You're veering into argument from authority territory there, asserting that the number of scientists who accept a given claim is more important than the content of the claim itself. At one point, I'm sure you'd be arguing that Phlogiston is a good explanation for fire; after all, lots of scientists believed in that elemental spirit of fire!

You havn't offered any content to refute, you've merely claimed there are other theories. Please, go ahead, offer one of these other theories.

Quote:

Quote:I'll take this as forfeiture of the point. Your theories are fringe theories, which exist but have very little backing.

My theory that I don't know has very little backing? I didn't realize intellectual honesty required that much support.

You offered your "recently proposed models", and your idea about the universe having preexisted for eternity before actually expanding. You play that "Look how intellectually honest i am for saying i don't know", card again when actually you are being perfectly dishonest, using it to avoid acknowledging having lost the point...

Quote:As for "very little backing" against your position, apparently Vilenkin is only an important scientific figure when he agrees with you, eh? And all the other scientists whose work you've misinterpreted, with your characteristic theistic layman's ignorance?

Nothing but claims

Quote:

Quote:So your argument is that everything recedes into a point in time where we can no longer understand what is happening. This pretty much constitutes a beginning to me, as all you have is an argument of ignorance "we cna't know, it could be possible, some way, that there wasn't a beginning". You recognise we're looking at the matter probabilistically, and hence you should concede the point.

If we don't know something, if the very basis of our descriptive tools is no longer adequate to describe something, it's not an argument from ignorance to admit that we don't know it. You're taking a point in time in which we can't yet describe what goes on, and saying "there was a beginning there." I'm admitting that if we can't even describe a thing, we don't know what happens there.

We know we don't know this is established. For the 18434th time... we're looking at likelihoods grounded in what we do know, which you refuse to acknowledge.

Quote:

Quote:You are misrepresenting your own source now, which i have already fully quoted.

"I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

The theorem implies a beginning, but there are potential work-arounds. Again the evidence is in my favour.

Yes, you want to take the simplistic answer over subtleties, because the subtleties, the account that takes in all the evidence, doesn't agree with you. It's just like when you dismiss the chief conclusion of Vilenkin's own theorem, because it disagrees with you. This isn't about the actual evidence with you, just the bits you can cherry pick to suit the conclusion you came to before looking at any of it.

You've made no case they don't agree with me. The theorem implies a beginning but there are potential workarounds, so if you are really picky then perhaps it doesn't have to necessarily imply a beginning, but you'd still be "forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning."

Some more Vilenkin quotes::

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

Quote:

Quote:What this amounts to is failure to distinquish relevance from irrelevance. The chief result of his paper isn't relevant to us, who are only concerned with a tiny part of it.

The chief result of the paper, that we require new, as yet undeveloped physics models to describe what happens before the beginning of universal expansion, is directly relevant to a discussion of what happened prior to the expansion of the universe, and it beggars belief that you'd call that irrelevant.

We know we need new physics to explain how it happened, but thats irrelevant to the fact that it has already been established that the universe almost certainly had a beginning - and not merely a beginning of expansion, but an "absolute" beginning, as Vilenkin says.

Quote:

Quote:I never argued that he knows anything, this is just a bad attempt at a straw man. We're talking about likelihoods. His answer doesn't pertain to where the evidence is leading whatsoever. The only fact we can glean from it is that he isn't 100% certain, which we already knew.

So when Guth goes on to answer "I suspect the universe didn't have a beginning," you're claiming that he still thinks he does? Did you even look at the debate we're talking about before you made up your mind on it?

We don't know what this suspicion is grounded on, thats why it was so absurd in the debate because Craig couldn't ask. It could be a personal hunch, irrelevant of the science, which their work, as it happens, would support. I'll take a half dozen clear quotes from Vilenkin before taking an ambiguous board held up by Guth on prerecorded video, created for an atheist to use in a debate. You are grasping at straws and if you need to appeal to this kind of nonsense you should just give up now. I thought you said you were good at debating Kalam?

Quote:

Quote:No, it says alot about your position that you recognise we are arguing about probabilities, yet you want to portray " there are ways to get around having a beginning" as a defeater to the fact that the scientific consensus thinks the universe "probably" had a beginning. Its hilarious, or deceitful, take your pick.

"If I assert a scientific consensus in my favor over and over, it totally exists!"
Oh, also not your position. I know you have trouble with that.

It is in my favour, you've given nothing except a bunch of emotes and cynical appeals to intellectual integrity to mask the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the weight of evidence, as it stands, in my favour.

Quote:

Quote:Again, difference between evidence and proof. As i already stated, proof shows something is true, evidence argues that it might be true. All he is saying here, is that his findings don't prove Gods existence, he is not saying that they cannot be taken as evidence, and he even implies that it is evidence when he confirms " In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian". If you want to debate it'd be helpful if you knew the meanings of basic words you use.

Well, in my defense, I don't often debate with evasive players of sophistic word games; I find them tiresome.

I'm being evasive?? Another cop out. Can't you just once admit you were wrong? You claimed that "Is it proof of the existence of god? This view would be far too simplistic." means it is wrong to take it as evidence for God, you were wrong, again.

Quote:

Quote:Well i am not afraid to follow where the evidence leads and discuss things on a probabilistic basis. All you are making is another "science of the gaps" argument.

But you aren't following the evidence, because you're actively misrepresenting the scientific models and outright dismissing whatever science doesn't fit with your conclusion. That may be christian science, but it's not the real kind.

You've offered no argument or counter evidence at all, this is just becoming farcical now. You've got 1: Your imagination that beginning means something other than beginning, although what you aren't willing to say, because you couldn't defend it. 2: Emotes, which i must say, make your strongest case, 3: Misrepresentation, incredulity and plays to the audience predisposition.

Quote:

Quote:How am i twisting science? You need to make the case before you make the assertion.

When you think Vilenkin is arguing for your position, he's alright as a source. When I pointed out that he's a proponent of multiverse theory, suddenly he's unreliable, and just making assumptions. That's twisting science.

Never said Vilenkin is arguing for my position, his quotes favour my position, theres a difference. Do you know why Vilenkin is a proponent of the multiverse? No, atleast you havn't graced us with any argument to counter mine - that he's a scientist, who are by definition naturalists, and the only reasonable naturalistic explanation for the appearance of fine tuning we see is a multiverse, meaning the evidence for the multiverse is merely inferred by means of apriori naturalism. Ive invited you to show us all any evidence for the multiverse you or Vilenkin might have, but you've declined. (see below)

Quote:

Quote:You've offered no evidence for any kind of multiverse. The only evidence for it is predicated on apriori naturalism, which is why scientists acting as scientists, who are naturalists by profession and definition, take the appearance of fine tuning as evidence for the multiverse - because the only other reasonable explanation is not naturalistic. They therefor have no choice but to posit and infinite multiverse which would sooner or later spit out a universe such as ours. They're just doing their job, and their job does not include or assume the supernatural. This is the paradigm of science.

I'm not required to provide evidence for a multiverse, as I don't necessarily accept that.

See above

Quote:

Quote:Hmm, you are copping out of this one too, then. The appearance of fine tuning does exist, hence the multiverse theory is imagined as a naturalistic explanation.

Fine tuning can only be a thing if you can first demonstrate that this particular universe, the appearance of life, whatever you're claiming the universe was fine tuned toward, was a goal state that it could have failed to reach. Without establishing that, this particular universe is no more or less likely than any other type of universe. You're assuming fine tuning without demonstrating that the universe was tuned at all.

Unsure of what you are attempting to say here, seems like a bunch of sciency-sounding mumbo-jumbo. The universe appears fine tuned because a bunch of its constants and quantities could have been anything, practically any configuration of which bar our own would have precluded the formation of a universe capable of permitting life.

Quote:

Quote:He said "putative evidence", and explains his position thoroughly in the quotes i originally provided, which were provided for the very reason of clearing this issue up, and the false inferences people such as yourself have made. Your quotes are earlier, my quotes are clearing up the quotes which you gave.

"Putative evidence," like his own experience? Like not seeing Jesus rise? You keep scrabbling for the primacy of personal experience, but then you ignore this point every time it's brought up. Are you trying to hide that it's there?

Because this claim only comes from atheist sources who don't attempt to cite WLCs explanation. ie, should he believe he actually went back in time, ahead of his personal experience in day to day life?

Quote:

Quote:Really, the guy fakes drawings of human embros to make the look like other creatures to support evolution, and im misrepresenting when i call it a fraud? You've provided no argument, just assertion so i don't feel the need to respond with much.

Aww, you didn't watch the video before you disagreed with it, did you? Cute.

I don't need to watch a video, don't defer your debating responsibilities. If you have an argument, present it.

Quote:

Quote:No, we're appealing to personal experience to justify personal belief. Its completely rational and you cannot make an argument showing otherwise without misrepresentation.

I can too: if I pump you full of hallucinogens, you can see some weird shit. You could use your personal experience of your hallucinations to justify your belief that they were real, but objective reality proves you wrong. Gee, I guess personal experience isn't necessarily completely true, huh?

It is reasonable to believe hallucinations, so long as you don't realise you are hallucinating, this is why they are so powerful. We trust our eyes from experience, we depend on them every single day, since the day we were born. Would it be wrong to depend on them every day, incase you might be hallucinating? Ofcourse not. Trusting experience takes precedence, the fact that it might not always be correct is irrelevant.

(February 20, 2015 at 12:46 am)YGninja Wrote:

(February 16, 2015 at 11:59 pm)Esquilax Wrote: "I'm going to run away now, but if I just say that your position is indefensible, that means I win! Nyah nyah!"

You quoted him for saying something that he did not say. Strike 1. Your reason for quoting him on something he did not say, was to ridicule him. Strike 2.

Are you insinuating a breach of the rules?

(February 20, 2015 at 12:51 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(February 20, 2015 at 12:46 am)YGninja Wrote: You quoted him for saying something that he did not say. Strike 1. Your reason for quoting him on something he did not say, was to ridicule him. Strike 2.

Are you insinuating a breach of the rules?

No.

Fine.

(February 20, 2015 at 12:58 am)YGninja Wrote:

(February 20, 2015 at 12:51 am)Stimbo Wrote: Are you insinuating a breach of the rules?

No.

Then shut the fuck up about it. I don't actually look to you for permission to say things, and since you seem incapable of keeping to a consistent position yourself- first you were up in arms, now apparently you don't have an issue with what I was doing, just that I didn't kowtow immediately to whatever you said- you really do just come off as a petty, small minded busybody.

I'll deal with the rest of what you wrote- assuming I can glean even the minutest of talking points from what I'm sure will be yet another helping of reassertion and willful misunderstanding- later on, but right now I need to be taking care of my sick wife.