Shadowy Man

Good post fishbulb.

I would further add that, at least for me to believe, intelligent design "theory" would have to prove that it is actually impossible for the universe to be as it it without an intelligent designer. I will be happy with naturalistic explanations until it is proven that they are necessarily incomplete.

Refractor

I think you may have misunderstood my argument. I am not saying we have no evidence that the universe ORIGINATED. I am saying that we have no evidence for what the universe's INTITAL STATE OF EXISTENCE was at the moment of origination. The only thing the evidence conclusively proves is that the universe began to exist, and that it is currently expanding. That's it. There is no evidence for what the initial state of the universe actually was when it began to exist.

A mathmatical model is not scientific proof, nor does it tell us anything conclusive about the origin event. The origin models are all based on key assumptions, not empirical evidence. Furthermore, the known laws of physics break down at 10^ -42 seconds, so even mathematical models become moot for anything that happened prior to that.


Yes, and to preclude a supernatural cause is purely an exercise of philosophical iconoclasm. Also, to assume an intelligent designer in light of intelligent design is not an act of "complicating" the matter. It is a necessary exercise of logical induction.

Furthermore, your espoused occam razor harms many of the quantum/multiverse models since those models do not simplify the origin events, but elevate them to whole new levels of complexity. Furthermore, which concepts are "superfluous" or not is largely a matter of philosophical opinion, so I find your gif to be far more rhetorical than it is informative.

Refractor

Refractor

Disclaimer For All:

Due to the sheer volume of responses, I am going to have to be selective with who I respond to and which statements I respond to. It would be very diffucult, redundant, and time-consuming for me to attempt to debate 6 or 7 different people at the same time. I do not have enough time or energy to that, so I apologize in advance to anyone who I don't respond to.

I will do my best to respond to points that I feel are most vital/applicable to my arguments.

Thanks,

Refractor

Shadowy Man

Intelligent design is not a fact. It is an interpretation of the facts.

Refractor

Thanks for being considerate about that.


Perhaps some clarification is order. My probability argument cannot be precisely quanitified, but it can be acknowledged. It is very evident that nearly all physical events have causes, and those causes are always separate and distinct from the events they are causing. The origin of the universe is a physical event. Therefore, probability greatly suggests that the universe had a cause, and the cause was separate and distinct from the universe. So in this context, my reference to probablity is totally veritable, even if I cannot provide an exact equation for it.


The fact is, we have no idea when the laws of physics came into existence, or what the initial state of the universe was actually like prior to 10^ -42 seconds planck time. All we know for sure is that the universe most likely began to exist at a finite point in the past, and that it is currently in a state of expansion. That's it.

So I agree with you that our empirical intuition is not of much use, but as a general rule of philosophy, we should try to make assumptions about the unknown based on the precedents of the known. So my argument is as follows:

1) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause.
2) Virtually all observed physical events have a cause that is separate and distinct from the event.
3) Therefore, for any given physical event, it most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the event.
4) The origin of the universe is a physical event.
5) Therefore, the origin of the universe most likely had a cause that was separate and distinct from the universe.

I hope this helps clarify my position on the issue of probability.


Refractor

Shadowy Man

This is speculation, not fact.

Mageth

I see a problem with:

4) The origin of the universe is a physical event.

Just prior to that, you said:

The fact is, we have no idea when the laws of physics came into existence, or what the initial state of the universe was actually like prior to 10^ -42 seconds planck time.

"Physical" derives from "physics". So if we have no idea when the laws of physics came into existence, or what the initial state of the universe was prior to 10^42 secs, then we cannot claim the proposition "The origin of the universe is a physical event" as true. Your argument fails.

PerhapsItsTruth

Genesis 1:28
God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Sorry I haven't kept up. Busy. Anyway, on the entire "children starving and dying" bit, God is not to blame. As you can see in the verse, the rule of "all living thing[s]" was handed to man at the beginning of the earth. So, saying to a christian or jew,"why doesn't God save the starving children," well, he gave that job to us. Since they're still starving and dying, guess that shows how good we are about caring for our own species, eh? Besides, for anyone out there backing abortion (excluding the absolute needed abortions) then why worry about starving children?

Anyway, someone said that the testimony of the healed mom wasn't proof, never said it was. For those who said I've made my mind up and don't listen to a word said, well, not true either. If I just went off and believed everything I was told then I'd just be more of an idiot than what ya'll already hold me to. And to those saying that there is no evidence of a god creating a universe, most one could go by at the moment is the concept of design. Something from nothing...hmm...

-Perhaps...

*any mistakes...darn*

Refractor

What are you suggesting? That the origin of the universe was a supernatural event? if it wasn't a physical event, what was it?

Refractor

Sorry Mageth, but your attempted rebuttal is the only thing that has failed. I said we don't know when the LAWS of physics came into existence. You can have physics without law. The laws of physics are simply a forulation that we use to describe the behavior of matter/energy. Its possible for matter/energy to exist without it behaving by an ordered (law).

Furthermore, I am somewhat confused with the intention of your psuedo counter-argument. If you believe that the universe wasn't a physical event, then what kind of event do you believe it was? A non-physical event? A supernatural event? Or...?


Refractor