No one ever asked you to bend your knee.




Of course I would ask how it was done.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

You're being presumptuous in demanding that the questions be answered in a specific order. Any teacher will tell you to answer the questions you can answer first. If you sit staring at the first question that stumps you, you'll get zero on the exam.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

I think it might be worthwhile to cover a few basics.

One is that so far no one has presented a way to test and verify the supernatural.

Until there is a way to test and verify the supernatural there is no way to speak of the supernatural other than as fantasy, as whimsy and as belief.

The natural on the other hand are those things which can be tested and verified.

The topic of the thread is "What's Wrong with the Universe?"

There are several ways to address such questions.

One that has been shown to work is by testing. That does not preclude positing some supernatural entity, or multiverses or strings or any other concept.

The key point is though that those ideas are simply whimsy, fantasy and belief until they can be tested and verified.

An idea that can be tested and verified then moves from the realm of whimsy, fantasy and belief into the realm of natural.

What the proponents of ID do not seem to understand is that to insert a designer as anything more than whimsy, fantasy or belief, it will have to be subject to the same testing as the other ideas; just like strings, multiverses or pink unicorns.

All of the whimsy, fantasy and beliefs go through the same filter and those where support can be found get moved from the category of whimsy, fantasy and belief into the "provisional answer" folder. Note the word "provisional."

That is important since historically answers simply lead to more questions.

However the main point is that any "provisional answers" must help explain the "How".

The problem with inserting the "designer fantasy" is that it tells us nothing about the "How." That is different from the strings fantasy or the multiverse fantasy. If evidence is found for either of those it will teach us yet another part of the "How."

The "Pink Unicorn" fantasy would be similar to the "Designer fantasy." If we did find evidence that the "Pink Unicorn" did it, unless we also discovered "How the Pink Unicorn did it" we would know little more.

The problem is not a lack of possible methods, rather it is that so far there is little evidence to allow us to choose between the various suggested solutions. That, choosing the more likely solution, will have to await additional confirmation.

If the proponents of ID can place the "Designer fantasy" on the table to be examined just as string theory or multiverse theory, if the "Designer fantasy" can be tested with the same rigor as string theory or multiverse theory AND if that also adds to the body of knowledge of "How it happened", then the "Designer fantasy" has some hope of moving from the realm of whimsy, fantasy and belief into the realm of natural.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

According to Merriam - Websters, the 'supernatural' is that which is outside of, or beyond nature.

Is there anything outside of, or beyond nature? For the sake of examining the options, if we assume not, then we must neccessarily posit an eternal universe. Empirical evidence shows that the universe is finite. That is why Einstein thought there was an error in his calculations. The concept of the eternal universe had been around for centuries and seemed obvious. Since the universe is finite, we must then posit that the universe came from nothing, since we have assumed at the start that there is nothing but nature.

If we assume that there is a supernatural dimension (the heavenly realm as it were...) then we should expect the universe to be unable to justify itself. That is the case. And since the natural sciences are founded on the validty of logic and non-contradiction (which is what testing is), it is more logical to assume an as yet not understood supernatural dimension as the original cause, rather than nothing.

So the universe itself is the evidence in my mind. Or as King David said, 'The heavens declare the Glory of God'.

They certainly don't declare their own glory. Speakling of themselves, the heavens only declare that something is wrong.



You mean empirically, not testing in general. There is no testing without the law of contradiction. Logic is the ultimate test. And your empirical universe logically tests and verifies that there is more than mere nature.



Do you include 'prebiotic organisms' (abiogenesis) in that catagory?



Testing only shows that it is logical. And empirical evidence helps tremendously to verify our ideas. And since the empirical evidence shows the material universe to be finite, it must have originated from something immaterial, or nothing at all. What other options are there?



Tested logically yes...



I am with you so far... only logical beliefs need apply.



Whoa.... what?

And what little pink unicorn told you that?

The 'how' can only be exalted to the status of primary worship if and only if... the natural exists and created itself.

But that is the point! There is something wrong with the universe. It cannot explain itself.



Neither does the natural concept of origins. Do you even grasp the reality that we are here discussing origins, and not the individual mechanical aspects of nature?



Why are you stuck on the how?



If you found evidence of the designer, the question would switch to 'why'?

Why would you study a crime scene to see 'how' a criminal did something, once the 'who' was known? Wouldn't the 'why' be of more value as to understanding 'how' it happened? Think about it...

The personal elements of motive are the only telling explanation for the how in the presence of personality. The knife did not jump up and cut the victim. It can tell us nothing about the how. Reason and motive are the key issues.

My point is that your premise is flawed. The how is only primary in the absence of personality. And one of my main points, is that you cannot scientifically dismiss personality from the equation before hand. How do you scientifically frame the question as 'how', and expect an answer? That is not a scientific question? It is a materialistic question?



More likely? (based on what assumptions?) What kind of testing... suggests to you... that the universe coming from nothing is more likely than something?



String theory and multiverse theory can only be tested logically, not empirically.

Not only can He be examined in the same way theologically, but He appeared materially, gave Himself to be tested by our most brutal rejection, rose from the dead, reveals Himself to those who accept Him, and is found less wanting by millions... under such an examination, than your delusional assertions and demands that defy all reason, and empirical inquiry.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

That's just it. In the case of origins, we don't know the "who". We don't even know if there is a perpetrator. It could be natural causes, it could be accidental, it could be suicide. We have to know the "how" before we can tell if there is a "who".

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

And that pretty much says that the supernatural is not observable.


There could be no evidence of anything outside of nature.


I cannot see any basis for that claim.


Actually, no, it doesn't as far as I know. The best you can say is that evidence suggests that the universe is finite, and that currently accepted cosmology takes it to be finite.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Nonsense.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Who are these nothing proponents and why do you keep talking about them as if they represent the scientific consensus? A change is needed in how you represent science because so far you got it all wrong. Jar's "Unanswered questions folder" would be a better choice of words to represent the consensus you are speaking of.

Paul Davies for one has voiced such an opinion. But I was in no way trying to create an impression that the scientific concensus is represented by the view. In fact, I personally believe just the opposite. I think I understand pretty well, 'how' the establishment looks at these things. And I even think I understand the 'why'.

It's like nwr said in his last response.

I find that baffling. If the 'current evidence' points in a particular direction, then the scientific thing to do is accept what the evidence points to. But that is not what 'scientists' do.

nwr is right. None of the evidence shows that the universe is finite. We may well find additional evidence pointing in another direction. My point, is that we should be moved by the evidence we do have.

The evidence points to a beginning. And seeing past the beginning cannot be an empirical matter. It is the realm of accepting certain assumptions (unscientifically) and then working out the solutions logically.

That's not science boys. Not the way you try and define it. Not without empirical evidence as the foremost spectacle for your lab table, and also testability and falsifiability following in an almost trinitarian glorious confirmation.

There are other models to escape the idea of a finite universe, such as the one touched upon here by Stephen Hawking: http://www.springerlink.com/content/g45 ... pdf?page=1 But as you can see, just in the introduction to the paper (I have not read the whole paper) Dr. Craig illuminates the obvious problems with the assumptions that go into such a fantastic stretching of the facts. My point, is that such mathematical modelling, is no different than using logic in philosophy (ie. theology) to work out from certain assumptions what can be reasoned. But neither is securely attached to the tree of the empirical world, once they get out on those thin limbs.

I detest the claim that one view is scientific (purely because it assumes a material beginning) and the other is not. Such a cliam is itself not tied to any empirical evidence, but is declared by a philosophicauthoritarimaterialistic decree.

That is the only point I am trying to make here...

Maybe your right. Maybe the universe has material origins and there is no need for a creator, and life as well emerged through the mystery of abiogenesis.

But none of those things have any empirical evidence to back them up. And they are not falsifiable (baring the 2nd coming of Christ). They are philosophical myths, equally, if not more incredible IMO, than the reality of God and His revelation by way of the logos.

I don't mind if people want to believe in fairy tales that they invent vs ones invented centuries ago. We all have reasons (why) we believe what we do. But I have a real and legitimate problem when either persecutes the other, as inferior.

We can disagree without being abusive. We can engage without dimissing thoughful arguments as 'nonesense'.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

As people have been trying to tell you, science follows the evidence that it does have. There are no philosophical claims about where it will lead. If the evidence could lead to something "immaterial", nobody here would have any philosophical problems with following it.

But how could it? And don't miss the emphasis: How could the evidence lead to something "immaterial"?

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

Now this is what is so frustrating...

We have already covered this ground. Ask Newton Ringo. But don't let the answer hit you on the head.

The immaterial realm is as empirical as the material.

'How' could the evidence lead to the immaterial?

I can't believe you wold ask the question, since that is exactly what a great deal of 19th and 20th century study of the material has done. It makes alot of people very uncomfortable including Einstein...

Don't you remember me reminding someone (perhaps it was you) that atoms are 99% empty space? The particles and forces making up the atoms are not anywhere near fully understood. We don't even know what matter is.

This whole dimension of the quantum is a can of ethereal worms that you and yours conveniently ignore.

Would you like to retract your comments, or do you intend to continue pretending that the world is flat, and made of nice hard little pellets?

It is made of grains (or waves, or... uh... we don;t know what to call them or it) of energy.

If you can tell me what or who energy is, not how it works, then you will be onto something that is no longer dependant upon philosophical bias.

One thing I can assure you... it isn't material. I don't know that we can call it immaterial either. But matter is made from the stuff.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Our access to evidence is limited. When we look at distant objects, the light from them is weak.

Many cosmologists will admit that their theories about the cosmos could be mistaken. Of course, they still think current cosmological theories are the most likely given the evidence we have.


Actually, no, it doesn't. It points to a singularity, but not to a beginning. And I do realize that is confusing.

_________________
Jesus was a liberal hippie

Sorry nwr, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a very real problem as is addressed by the article that I began this thread with. If the universe is eternal, then it has had all eternity to for entropy to have taken it's course, so we have limited options.

This of course doesn't prove that the universe is finite and began. But it does reveal that we must guess (not observe) what cause existed before the singularity (assuming also the singularity itself). Tat is not a testable, falsifiable, or natural science question. It is a question left to philosophers.

If you start with the assumption that the universe is eternal and that purely material processes (of some kind) other than the current laws of physics existed I have no roblem with that. But those assumptions are not natural science of the kind you are attempting to defend. They are the science of philosophy based on assumptions. And king of all is the assumption (or the intuitive certainty) that our reasoning is valid to begin with when analyzing all of these factors.

Sorry if I appear to be confused, but indulge me, by reading a short clip from a little thinking on paper I did on the subject 4 years ago.

(Black Holes and Baloney Sandwiches)

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Those atoms are the material universe. There's nothing "immaterial" about them. If a bottle is 99% empty space, that doesn't make the glass "immaterial".


We know enough that we don't have to assume anything "immaterial".


Not at all. Nothing "immaterial" there.


Far from retracting my comments, I'd like you to answer the question: How would you detect something immaterial? The fact that the pellets contain space doesn't prevent them from being hard. We can detect them with other hard-pellet objects, with light, with electrons, etc. Tell us, please, how you propose to detect something "beyond" what we can already detect.


And it's the interaction of those waves of grain with our instruments (which are made of the same waves of grain) that we call "empirical evidence". Show us some evidence that doesn't come from such a source.


The idea that what it "is" is separate from what it "does" is just your philosophical bias.

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

By sitting under an apple tree. Have you not heard of gravity? Have we not covered this ground?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Invisible qualities clearly seen?

What is invisible to the eye, can be quite visible to the mind. Unless of course we choose to see with and not through the eye.

Some people are blind.

Every Word Ringo... Every Word.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns