Presuppositional Apologetics

[37818]

There are not any falsifiable models nor hypothesis for a finite universe.

So are you saying all models and hypothesis for the universe are not science but pure metaphyisics?

Possible? Science cannot falsify a negative.

That is supposed. But if anything else is discovered through science which rules out that negative, then that negative is disproven.

If you are Hindu, you may believe our physical existence is an illusion.

That Hindu sect and belief are called what? Even illusion requires an existence. Ultimately there is the uncaused existence. Uncaused existence is one thing in and of itself.

There is the possibility of one unifying "Law" but at present the evidence indicates a set of laws. No an assertion, just based on the evidence.

Evidence is a matter of existing and contingent upon existence. An existence is the fundamental presupposition. It is the self evident that all things that are real must be in.

I never claimed models and hypothesis were evidence.

So they are based on some kind of evidence and presuppositions.

Not necessarily. It is possible that our physical existence is eternal and uncaused.

Pure supposition. Is the physical contingent upon nothing?

What ever arguments are made - an uncaused existence must be presumed. And an uncaused existence is of itself - nothing else.

If our physical existence and Natural Laws are eternal it is possibly "uncaused."

But they consist of finite and temporal things so also contingent even if co-eternal with the uncaused existence. Only uncaused existence can be purely infinite and eternal being of itself.

[shunyadragon]

So are you saying all models and hypothesis for the universe are not science but pure metaphyisics?

Absolutely NO!!! I am referring to whether the models and hypothesis can falsify whether our physical existence is eternal or non-eternal.

That is supposed. But if anything else is discovered through science which rules out that negative, then that negative is disproven.

No. If science rules out the negative based on the present knowledge that does not prove nor disprove anything. Let's go to the high school basics of science. The rest of this reference can be educational in that regard.

Source: http://forums.compuserve.com/n/docs/docDownload.aspx?webtag=ws-politics&guid=9f343736-ba00-48bc-ae40-25ecc444e3e7

One often hears the naive critic of science say "it's only a theory", meaning that it is "unproven" and once "proven" will become a law or a fact. This is not surprising, because such a notion is consistent with what is sometimes erroneously taught in Junior High General Science classes. The statement is, nonetheless, completely false and demonstrates two common misunderstandings about science.

The first misunderstanding is that science "proves" anything. Nothing in science is ever "proven", it is only confirmed by observation; but such confirmation is always tentative. No matter how well or how long a scientific theory has been confirmed, it is always subject to falsification or correction by new observations.

© Copyright Original Source

That Hindu sect and belief are called what? Even illusion requires an existence.

According to most Hindus, no, illusion does not require existence, which is ultimately completely destroyed by Shiva. A new existence emerges, but one is not dependent on the other.

Ultimately there is the uncaused existence. Uncaused existence is one thing in and of itself.

True, but it is possible that the Laws of Nature, and physical nature of existence is ultimately uncaused and one thing in and of itself.

Evidence is a matter of existing and contingent upon existence. An existence is the fundamental presupposition. It is the self evident that all things that are real must be in.

True. So what!?!?!


So they are based on some kind of evidence and presuppositions.


Pure supposition. Is the physical contingent upon nothing?

What ever arguments are made - an uncaused existence must be presumed. And an uncaused existence is of itself - nothing else.


But they consist of finite and temporal things so also contingent even if co-eternal with the uncaused existence. Only uncaused existence can be purely infinite and eternal being of itself.[/QUOTE]

[seer]

The first misunderstanding is that science "proves" anything. Nothing in science is ever "proven", it is only confirmed by observation; but such confirmation is always tentative. No matter how well or how long a scientific theory has been confirmed, it is always subject to falsification or correction by new observations. [/cite]

Yes like the theory of evolution or man made global warming...

[shunyadragon]

Yes like the theory of evolution or man made global warming...

Let's not look for rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rocks to find weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution nor Icebergs on the Amazon to reject global warming.

The basic theory of Evolution has little room for change. What is subject to change is more the details of the science and the progressive knowledge of fossil discoveries and genetics. Global Climate change has a firm grounding in science, but as I have always admitted, even in debates with Glenn Morton, the degree and future extent of climate change is always open to change. The 'elephant in the room' for global warming is huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. and the known consequences to climate in geologic history.

Consider this a one time response to an off topic post and address these issues in an appropriate thread.

[seer]

Let's not look for rabbit fossils in Pre-Cambrian rocks to find weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution nor Icebergs on the Amazon to reject global warming.

The basic theory of Evolution has little room for change. What is subject to change is more the details of the science and the progressive knowledge of fossil discoveries and genetics. Global Climate change has a firm grounding in science, but as I have always admitted, even in debates with Glenn Morton, the degree and future extent of climate change is always open to change. The 'elephant in the room' for global warming is huge increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. and the known consequences to climate in geologic history.

Consider this a one time response to an off topic post and address these issues in an appropriate thread.

But I thought NOTHING in science was EVER PROVEN?

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, I missed part of your post in my response.

So they are based on some kind of evidence and presuppositions.

Yes the cosmological models and hypothesis are based on the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

Pure supposition. Is the physical contingent upon nothing?

No, our physical existence is based on Natural Law, and the inherent nature of our physical existence.

What ever arguments are made - an uncaused existence must be presumed. And an uncaused existence is of itself - nothing else.

True, but it is possible that our physical existence is uncaused, eternal, and simply exists, and yes an uncaused existence is of itself - nothing else.

But they consist of finite and temporal things so also contingent even if co-eternal with the uncaused existence. Only uncaused existence can be purely infinite and eternal being of itself.

Just because our physical existence contains finite and temporal things, does not negate the possibility that our physical existence and Natural Law is eternal. Likewise, if God Creates finite and temporal things, would not be the basis for concluding that God is not eternal.

[shunyadragon]

But I thought NOTHING in science was EVER PROVEN?

True, so what????

Careful logic proofs depend on the assumptions of the argument and the knowledge at the time and theses factors also may change over time. This is the same in math, which also may change over time

This indeed makes science flexible for change when new information is available.

The science and math of Physics and Cosmology is indeed flexible, and at present a number of models and hypothesis are being pursued by a diversity of scientists, and at present in this diversity, some have been found false, and others are evolving and changing based on new knowledge. That has always been how science works! .

[37818]

Yes the cosmological models and hypothesis are based on the scientific evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

Yeah, finite and temporal.

No, our physical existence is based on Natural Law, and the inherent nature of our physical existence.

What is that "Natural Law?"

True, but it is possible that our physical existence is uncaused, eternal, and simply exists, and yes an uncaused existence is of itself - nothing else.

How would that be possible for a temporal physical existence?

Just because our physical existence contains finite and temporal things, does not negate the possibility that our physical existence and Natural Law is eternal.

Again what is that "Natural Law." Anything finite and temporal is not eternal. Unless it is both eternal and temporal being two things and one thing at the same time.

Likewise, if God Creates finite and temporal things, would not be the basis for concluding that God is not eternal.

That God would have to have two natures - eternal and temporal. Since all causes are temporal in nature.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, finite and temporal.

Noe falsifiable and Undetermined, except by unfounded assertion

[quote] What is that "Natural Law?" [/quoote]

Defined for you many times, essentially the Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence that the Scientific Laws are based on. There is no known 'Source' outside our physical existence for these Laws.

Can you provide any objective evidence that there exists another cause outside our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence than Natural Law?

How would that be possible for a temporal physical existence?

Anything finite and temporal is not eternal.

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that our physical existence is temporal.

Unless it is both eternal and temporal being two things and one thing at the same time.

Does not make sense!?!?!?!

That God would have to have two natures - eternal and temporal.

The nature of God is not dependent on our assertions as to what God can nor cannot be.

Since all causes are temporal in nature.

There is no objective evidence that Natural Law id not the uncaused cause of the nature of our physical existence.

[Carrikature]

But I thought NOTHING in science was EVER PROVEN?

Do you not understand this concept? I have to wonder if you're just trolling here.

[37818]

Nor falsifiable and Undetermined, except by unfounded assertion

What unfounded assertion?

What is that "Natural Law?"

Defined for you many times, essentially the Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence that the Scientific Laws are based on. There is no known 'Source' outside our physical existence for these Laws.

Can you provide any objective evidence that there exists another cause outside our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence than Natural Law?

What have you defined? Please give your quote and give the post # where you have defined that "Natural Law."

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that our physical existence is temporal.

Why should there be? All the evidence is temporal in nature. It is even believed the known laws of the known universe began with this known universe.

Does not make sense!?!?!?!

Yeah, making the claim undefined "Natural Law" to be eternal.

The nature of God is not dependent on our assertions as to what God can nor cannot be.

What does your use of the term "God" mean?

There is no objective evidence that Natural Law id not the uncaused cause of the nature of our physical existence.

A few things here. You have not clarified what "Nature Law" means. Again, natural laws are many, not just one. And all have to do with the finite and temporal existence of things. As for an "uncaused cause" that at the very least must be two things. What is "uncaused" is eternal, having no beginning. As to any "cause," it must be finite and temporal in order to be a cause.

[shunyadragon]

What unfounded assertion?

That our physical existence is finite and temporal.

What have you defined? Please give your quote and give the post # where you have defined that "Natural Law."

In the last post . . . the Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence that the Scientific Laws are based on. There is no known 'Source' outside our physical existence for these Laws.

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

. . . Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists' attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, . . .

© Copyright Original Source

Unanswered question. I need a scientific source not an assertion on your part.

Can you provide any objective evidence that there exists another cause outside our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence other than Natural Law(s)?

Why should there be? All the evidence is temporal in nature. It is even believed the known laws of the known universe began with this known universe.

Unfounded assertion, many scientists support that the Laws of Nature existed prior to the beginning of the universe, including Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. We have scientific laws that are based on falsifiable scientific methods, but it remains unknown what is the ultimate nature of Natural Laws. The best you can do is 'Argue from ignorance.'.

Yeah, making the claim undefined "Natural Law" to be eternal.

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that "Natural Laws" and our physical existence are eternal nor non-eternal. The nature of our physical existence as being either eternal nor non-eternal are not falsifiable. If you believe so please cite scientific publications that support your assertions.

What does your use of the term "God" mean?

God is the Source and Creator of our physical existence.

A few things here. You have not clarified what "Nature Law" means. Again, natural laws are many, not just one. And all have to do with the finite and temporal existence of things. As for an "uncaused cause" that at the very least must be two things. What is "uncaused" is eternal, having no beginning. As to any "cause," it must be finite and temporal in order to be a cause.

Yes, what is eternal has no beginning and is uncaused. It is possible that our physical existence and Natural Laws are eternal and uncaused. The fact that at present there are more than on natural Law is not meaningful to the discussion. It is also possible that there is one Universal Natural Law that explains the Natural Laws. All you can do is 'argue from ignorance.'

[37818]

That our physical existence is finite and temporal.

That is what is in evidence: The finite and temporal.

In the last post . . . the Laws that govern the nature of our physical existence that the Scientific Laws are based on. There is no known 'Source' outside our physical existence for these Laws.

Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

. . . Scientific Laws, which some researchers consider to be scientists' attempts to state or approximate the Laws of Nature, . . .

© Copyright Original Source

Well, that says nothing what the "Natural Law" is.

Unanswered question. I need a scientific source not an assertion on your part.

Can you provide any objective evidence that there exists another cause outside our physical existence that determines the nature of our physical existence other than Natural Law(s)?

What was the assertion you are refering to? You know there is at this time no known scientific evidence for anything prior to our physical existence. Which BTW can only suggest that the known physical existence is finite and temporal.

Unfounded assertion, many scientists support that the Laws of Nature existed prior to the beginning of the universe, including Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. We have scientific laws that are based on falsifiable scientific methods, but it remains unknown what is the ultimate nature of Natural Laws. The best you can do is 'Argue from ignorance.'.

What evidence do any of those, just named, scientists cite for laws of nature prior to the known universe?

There is no objective falsifiable evidence that "Natural Laws" and our physical existence are eternal nor non-eternal. The nature of our physical existence as being either eternal nor non-eternal are not falsifiable. If you believe so please cite scientific publications that support your assertions.

The only evidence there is, is finite and temporal.

God is the Source and Creator of our physical existence.



Yes, what is eternal has no beginning and is uncaused. It is possible that our physical existence and Natural Laws are eternal and uncaused. The fact that at present there are more than on natural Law is not meaningful to the discussion. It is also possible that there is one Universal Natural Law that explains the Natural Laws. All you can do is 'argue from ignorance.'

So would it be fair to assert your view of God is that He is the on Universal Natural Law that is the Source of Natural Laws?

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=37818;391916]That is what is in evidence: The finite and temporal.

What evidence?!?!?!

Well, that says nothing what the "Natural Law" is.

Yes it is! That is the definition of Natural Law as described and cited before.

What was the assertion you are refering to? You know there is at this time no known scientific evidence for anything prior to our physical existence. Which BTW can only suggest that the known physical existence is finite and temporal.

Ultimately there is no falsifiable evidence to determine the limits of our physical existence, unless you can provide something, which you have refused to do.

Suggesting that the physical existence is finite and temporal is just that a suggestion, and beyond that it is only an assertion. Again the best you can do is argue your position from an 'argument from ignorance,' which is a fallacy based on a religious agenda.

What evidence do any of those, just named, scientists cite for laws of nature prior to the known universe?

Ultimately the limits of our universe and the greater cosmos is not known nor falsifiable by objective scientific methods, therefore any such absolute claim either way is an assertion based on belief, not the evidence.

Their models and hypothesis of the origin of the cosmos based on scientific evidence cited in many threads on Tweb. You can easily read their references if you like. Because they have been cited many times, I am reluctant to spoon fed. Ultimately neither an eternal nor non-eternal cosmos can be falsified by objective scientific methods.

The only evidence there is, is finite and temporal.

What evidence?!?!?! The current models, hypothesis, and scientific evidence cannot know nor conclude that there was an absolute beginning at the beginning of the expansion of our universe.

So would it be fair to assert your view of God is that He is the one Universal Natural Law that is the Source of Natural Laws?

By belief, but not the evidence.

[37818]

What evidence?!?!?!

Our very physical universe is the evidence that it is finite and temporal. That it, the universe, is eternal is purely a metaphysical interpetation. To argue that interpretation is a possibility is also a metaphysical interpretation.