An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

Science is not philosophically neutral at all, quite the reverse. The basis of the scientific method is ‘methodological naturalism”, which is a technique by which scientists specifically avoid considering supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility. Hence WL Craig is misappropriating science by attempting to use it to prove a theological argument. And yes, he’s done it before with his misuse of Vilenkin.

Yes science operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism but that does not prohibit the use of science in theological arguments. This makes absolutely no sense. It is not a misuse...a misuse implies misrepresentation of the argument or of the scientist who found the data. The results of science in describing the natural world are philosophically neutral. They are just facts that can be used in the case for or against theism.

To say that a theist cannot use scientific facts to argue for the existence of God is an invalid position to have. There is no philosophical or logical justification for this point of view.

The ‘god of the gaps’ scenario only applies if there are claimed to be some questions science cannot, at least potentially, answer. But science never makes this claim. Many things in science are predicted to exist long before they have been observed to exist. E.g. the Higgs Boson, essential for particle physics theory, was predicted long before it was confirmed to exist.

There are unanswered questions in science. Science will always seek to answer them. It’s a mistake to claim that some things are beyond the reach of science.

Explain how if the scientific theory itself says that there is no way to observe another universe, how could we observe another universe? Wouldn't this be beyond the abilities of science?

The laws and constants of the universe are what they are and it is the role of science to try and determine how they function. The very terms “argument from fine-tuning” or "from design” implies a “tuner” or “designer”...i.e. “an intelligence”. This is unwarranted speculation and an unscientific assumption.

This is a very shallow argument ...the terminology is why it is not a legitimate question?!? Why are the constants just such that they allow carbon atoms to evolve into beings that can contemplate their own existence?

Is that better?

[Tassman]

That if the universe created itself, it was not therefore created from a previous multiverse or some quantum vacuum.

That’s not what Hawking said in the link. He hypothesised in his no-boundary theory that our universe, as it inflated super fast from its singularity, would pop off other universes and ultimately an entire multiverse.

Right as a good atheist he did want to give it up,

You’re projecting your own predilection for accepting only what supports your own theistic presuppositions. Hawking was a great scientist and had more integrity than that.

but as your own link stated it was pure speculation based on assumption. And has your link made clear it has a fundamental flaw:

In other words it is not testable, so it is not science.

Hawking did not move away from multiverse theory and, even though although he recognised the problems associated with it, multiverse theory very much remains on the table as a work in progress.

[Tassman]

Yes science operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism but that does not prohibit the use of science in theological arguments. This makes absolutely no sense. It is not a misuse...a misuse implies misrepresentation of the argument or of the scientist who found the data. The results of science in describing the natural world are philosophically neutral. They are just facts that can be used in the case for or against theism.

To say that a theist cannot use scientific facts to argue for the existence of God is an invalid position to have. There is no philosophical or logical justification for this point of view.

Given that science specifically avoids considering supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility - it is a contradiction for it to be appropriated by those who attribute supernatural revelation as the basis of their beliefs. Methodological naturalism as applied by science is in direct contrast with supernaturalism.

Explain how if the scientific theory itself says that there is no way to observe another universe, how could we observe another universe? Wouldn't this be beyond the abilities of science?

Via strong inductive argument as has been the case with many scientific hypotheses. Scientific induction can lead to conclusions that have been validated to such a degree that it can reasonably act on the basis that they are true.

This is a very shallow argument ...the terminology is why it is not a legitimate question?!? Why are the constants just such that they allow carbon atoms to evolve into beings that can contemplate their own existence?

Is that better?

There is nothing to question. The laws and constants of the universe are what they are. It is the role of science to try and determine how they function not to ask why they result in "beings that can contemplate their own existence"...as if there is a purpose for them doing this.

[seer]

That’s not what Hawking said in the link. He hypothesised in his no-boundary theory that our universe, as it inflated super fast from its singularity, would pop off other universes and ultimately an entire multiverse.

Yes that is the multiverse theory, not the theory of the universe creating itself:Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. He is not speaking of popping off from other universes, other universes would not be NOTHING, or close to nothing.

You’re projecting your own predilection for accepting only what supports your own theistic presuppositions. Hawking was a great scientist and had more integrity than that.

And Hawking said that God was not needed to create the universe, but he really does not know how the universe was created, so he is just following his atheistic bias.

Hawking did not move away from multiverse theory and, even though although he recognised the problems associated with it, multiverse theory very much remains on the table as a work in progress.

How do you actually test to see if other universe actually exist? As your own link stated it most likely is not a testable theory, never mind the fact that you could never demonstrate that a multiverse is past eternal, that it didn't have a beginning.

[element771]

Given that science specifically avoids considering supernatural causes - even as a remote possibility - it is a contradiction for it to be appropriated by those who attribute supernatural revelation as the basis of their beliefs. Methodological naturalism as applied by science is in direct contrast with supernaturalism.

Right but we aren't talking about using science as a way to examine the theological questions.

Let's do a thought experiment...

If a molecular biologist uncovered a weird occurrence of a protein whose sequence is YAHWEHMADEEVERYTHING over and over again. A theists couldn't take this scientific fact and use it in an argument for God?

I have never heard of anyone that has made this argument before.

Via strong inductive argument as has been the case with many scientific hypotheses. Scientific induction can lead to conclusions that have been validated to such a degree that it can reasonably act on the basis that they are true.

How could you verify these with empirical data?

[JimL]

But he is not speaking of tunneling, and yes not very confident because nobody really has a clue on how or why this universe came into being.

Yes, he was, and though he doesn't have anything to say about god, most every other physicist that I've read concerning this "universe from nothing" concept, refer to it as a naturally occuring event and their "nothings" are never absolute nothings. Some refer to false vacuums, some refer to the quantum vacuum as the "nothing" from out of which(out of nothing)particles pop into existence, some refer to the existence of gravity alone, some refer to the dark energy, or cosmological constant which is contained in every bit of space even when there is no matter present. Vilenkin talks about the physical laws existing, but laws themselves can't create anything out of absolute nothing, and even if you want to argue that they can, then you would be arguing that the universe is past infinite because the laws would be past infinite.

[seer]

Yes, he was, and though he doesn't have anything to say about god, most every other physicist that I've read concerning this "universe from nothing" concept, refer to it as a naturally occuring event and their "nothings" are never absolute nothings. Some refer to false vacuums, some refer to the quantum vacuum as the "nothing" from out of which(out of nothing)particles pop into existence, some refer to the existence of gravity alone, some refer to the dark energy, or cosmological constant which is contained in every bit of space even when there is no matter present. Vilenkin talks about the physical laws existing, but laws themselves can't create anything out of absolute nothing, and even if you want to argue that they can, then you would be arguing that the universe is past infinite because the laws would be past infinite.

No Jim, if the laws existed in the Platonic sense for eternity past, it would not follow that matter and energy were past eternal. Of course as a Christian I could conclude that such laws were past eternal. And even Krauss has mused about creation without pre-existing time or space. The fact is many of these physicist are getting rather close to creation ex nihilo.

[Tassman]

No Jim, if the laws existed in the Platonic sense for eternity past, it would not follow that matter and energy were past eternal. Of course as a Christian I could conclude that such laws were past eternal. And even Krauss has mused about creation without pre-existing time or space. The fact is many of these physicist are getting rather close to creation ex nihilo.

This is just the standard ‘god of the gaps’ argument, in short, an ‘argument from ignorance’. It’s only in your own mind that “physicists are getting rather close to creation ex nihilo”. Physicists themselves do not consider this to be the case and continue to study how the universe behaves. You are free to disregard any findings that do not conform to your religious presuppositions. <sarcasm>

[Tassman]

Yes that is the multiverse theory, not the theory of the universe creating itself:Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. He is not speaking of popping off from other universes, other universes would not be NOTHING, or close to nothing.

That’s precisely what he’s suggesting.

And Hawking said that God was not needed to create the universe, but he really does not know how the universe was created, so he is just following his atheistic bias.

No, Hawking is just following the scientific method i.e. methodological naturalism. This is the scientific strategy for studying the world, whereby scientists exclude supernatural causes.

How do you actually test to see if other universe actually exist? As your own link stated it most likely is not a testable theory, never mind the fact that you could never demonstrate that a multiverse is past eternal, that it didn't have a beginning.

Science is working on it.

[Tassman]

Right but we aren't talking about using science as a way to examine the theological questions.

WL Craig, among others, does misuse science in an attempt to reinforce his theological beliefs.

Let's do a thought experiment...

If a molecular biologist uncovered a weird occurrence of a protein whose sequence is YAHWEHMADEEVERYTHING over and over again. A theists couldn't take this scientific fact and use it in an argument for God?

I have never heard of anyone that has made this argument before.

Sorry! I don’t understand the point you’re making.

How could you verify these with empirical data?

Science at the predictive level consists of a variety of methods for making abstract models of nature and then testing those models against reality. It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and over fifty to verify the Higgs Boson. When these phenomena were first predicted there were no experiments on the table to falsify them - we had to wait a long time. And so it will be with multiverse theory before it is either falsified or verified...physicists and cosmologists wouldn't bother themselves with it if they didn't think it possible.

[seer]

This is just the standard ‘god of the gaps’ argument, in short, an ‘argument from ignorance’. It’s only in your own mind that “physicists are getting rather close to creation ex nihilo”. Physicists themselves do not consider this to be the case and continue to study how the universe behaves. You are free to disregard any findings that do not conform to your religious presuppositions. <sarcasm>

Oh please, and you keep hoping for a natural explanation. One that may not even be possible.

[seer]

That’s precisely what he’s suggesting.

Right creation from nothing, not creation from a multiverse.

No, Hawking is just following the scientific method i.e. methodological naturalism. This is the scientific strategy for studying the world, whereby scientists exclude supernatural causes.

No it is a complete bias. He has no idea if natural causes created this universe or how. This is not merely methodological naturalism, it is philosophical naturalism

Science is working on it.

How can "science" be working on it if it is not testable or observable?

[element771]

WL Craig, among others, does misuse science in an attempt to reinforce his theological beliefs.

This is not misuse. They only way to misuse facts is to state them incorrectly or interpret the data incorrectly. You can't just arbitrarily say that this knowledge is off limits to use in argumentation.

Sorry! I don’t understand the point you’re making.

How about this one?

An astronomer finds a pulsar whose signal is morse code. When the morse code is translated, it reads..."Jesus is Lord"

Can a Christian not use this data to support his / her arguments for Christianity?

Please remember that it is a thought experiment and that I am not concerned if a pulsar could, in fact, do this.

Science at the predictive level consists of a variety of methods for making abstract models of nature and then testing those models against reality. It took over thirty years to discover all of the Quarks, forty years to see the Cosmic Microwave Background, and over fifty to verify the Higgs Boson. When these phenomena were first predicted there were no experiments on the table to falsify them - we had to wait a long time. And so it will be with multiverse theory before it is either falsified or verified...physicists and cosmologists wouldn't bother themselves with it if they didn't think it possible.

There is a big difference between we can't observe that yet vs this is fundamentally not observable by definition.

[JimL]

No Jim, if the laws existed in the Platonic sense for eternity past, it would not follow that matter and energy were past eternal. Of course as a Christian I could conclude that such laws were past eternal. And even Krauss has mused about creation without pre-existing time or space. The fact is many of these physicist are getting rather close to creation ex nihilo.

If the physical laws themselves were the cause of a universe from nothing, and those laws are past infinite, then their effect, a universe from nothing, would be past infinite as well.

[seer]

If the physical laws themselves were the cause of a universe from nothing, and those laws are past infinite, then their effect, a universe from nothing, would be past infinite as well.

But laws are not things and no it does not follow that matter and energy would be infinite too.