http://atheism-analyzed.net/First%20Principles.htm

“…Empiricism has voluntarily chosen to limit its range of investigation, and, in theory any way, does not say anything at all about transcendences or about value systems, except that they are out of the range of the testability and verification constraints placed upon Empirical processes. (Empiricism is a process, not a worldview or value system).

In this manner Empiricism retains its validity as a process for obtaining information about physical reality. Naturalism and Materialism are seen to be invalid, non-coherent worldviews, spun off from Empiricism, but no longer identical to it.”

This is a nonsense statement. It does not make sense to say ‘nothing existed before the singularity’ For this assumes a ‘before’ and a before isn’t nothing.

Yes, speaking of a moment “before” the moment of creation does imply time before time, which is incoherent on the view of temporal becoming. But notice that this phrase is placed in a context. Immediately preceding this statement are the words, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; . . .” such that Barrow and Tippler are affirming that very point – that there is nothing before, for there was no before, thus there there was nothing. William Lane Craig, one of the worlds top philosophers of time states;

In my early work, I thought people would understand, once I explained my view, that the expression “before creation” is just a harmless façon de parler (manner of speaking), not to be taken literally. But in light of the confusion engendered by the phrase, I have since been very careful to avoid it . . .

And calling them on their use of tensed language you play the fiend. It is evidently you who play word games. You, who accuse me of what you do yourself.

I thus quit our “fruitless” conversation.

From the quotes you posted:

literally nothing existed before the singularity

This is a nonsense statement. It does not make sense to say ‘nothing existed before the singularity’ For this assumes a ‘before’ and a before isn’t nothing.

For two, when you ask a scientist in the know what caused the universe, he would be wise to not respond.

LMAO. Oh, so when you ask a scientist what caused the universe we should ignore him. But when we he tells us that there was nothing before the universe, then we should listen!
Jonathan! You are addressing the wrong person.

Jonathan,

I don’t get it. Nothing I have said claims that there must be an uncaused cause. Even your summaries of my statements do not claim an uncaused cause.

—–

At any rate, this discussion has strayed from my purpose here, which was for the discussion of the advancement of knowledge with vs. without religion. One other point. Stuart, your notion of argumentum ad consequentiam, I’m afraid is the way advancement, enlightenment, science works. It’s called empiricism. If you want to deny it, go ahead! Truth is the same as fruitfulness. Or rather, truth bears fruit, and where there is fruit there is truth. And you must agree with this, Stuart, otherwise how could you tell what was true? It may be that it is ‘true’ that positives attract, but that ‘fruit’ is bared where it is assumed that positives repel. No, fruitfullness and truth go together. Again, truth is not an absolute in the sense you seem to want it to be. Truth is a correlation between our models of the world and the world itself*. (i)-(iii) are excellently fruitful, they have been assumed for thousands and thousands of years (apes do so), and so they are said to be ‘true’.

*How do I know this? Because I know that where our models of the world are disregarded (e.g. theological occasionalism) progress halts.

a) the universe needs a cause because of the necessity for something before it (you cannot get something from nothing)
b) there cannot be an uncaused cause, (and the reason for this was) because we never observe such (so) there is no call for such

Yes Other Simon, you certainly do embrace contradictions and as such have proven that you cannot even be reasoned with. The first point you made contradicts the second because you used logic to reason that there must be something eternal (which is an “uncaused cause”). Then you immediately refute your own logic by claiming that what “you observe” (is everything and this) refutes the possibility of “uncaused causes”.

A person only needs one “miracle”, one non-natural event to break the false paradigm of naturalism. If you cannot see how rationality, or objective morality, or the design of life breaks this (which is open to everyone), I suggest you look at the “scientific studies” that confirm consciousness after death and consciousness apart from the physical body. If it dawns on you that we really are more than just matter, then it would be entirely prudent to seek the truth. I certainly wish you the best is this matter.

Stuart, thanks for the time you put in to explaining the same thing over and over. And your dedication to reason and logic is well appreciated.

Ultimately, the universe can have had no beginning. Scientists talk about the universe having a begining, but they do not mean the ‘universe’ as in absolutely everything. This becomes immediately obvious when you ask them what could have caused the universe. For example, if the universe had a beginning there must have been something before it. And that something-before-it must be part of the universe by the definition of ‘universe’. There is a necessarily self-contradiction and mystery here. I embrace that.

Aside from the admitted self-contradiction, this is a very poor analysis of the issues.

For one, when scientists talk of a beginning to the universe, they do refer to an absolute beginning of all matter, energy, space and time. Note well Barrow and Tipler on ‘Nothing’ and the absolute beginning of the universe…

It is, of course, somewhat inappropriate to call the origin of a bubble universe in a fluctuation of the vacuum ‘creation ex nihilo‘, for the quantum mechanical vacuum is not truly ‘nothing’; rather, the vacuum state has a rich structure which resides in a previously existing substratum of space-time, either Minkowski of de Sitter space-time. Clearly, a true ‘creation ex nihilo‘ would be spontaneous generation of everything space-time, the quantum mechanical vacuum, matter at some time in the past.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford: Clarendon, 1986), p. 441.

At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.

Ibid., 442.

For two, when you ask a scientist in the know what caused the universe, he would be wise to not respond. Such a question lies beyond his domain and belongs properly to the metaphysicians. Other Simon seems to posses the mistaken notion that the universe (which is all that is natural; be it space, matter, time or energy) can somehow circumvent the laws of logic and pre-exist its own existence. I say “seems” because it is very difficult to discern if this is an argument or just a word game.

Ultimately, the universe can have had no beginning. Scientists talk about the universe having a begining, but they do not mean the ‘universe’ as in absolutely everything. This becomes immediately obvious when you ask them what could have caused the universe. For example, if the universe had a beginning there must have been something before it. And that something-before-it must be part of the universe by the definition of ‘universe’. There is a necessarily self-contradiction and mystery here. I embrace that.

I guess he who embraces self-contradiction wins the day… I can be content if your victory is without rationality.

I still think the idea that there is an uncaused cause is ad-hoc. We NEVER observe uncaused causes; we know this. There is no call for one.

So the argument is uncaused causes do not exist because you’ve never seen or observed one. Pathetic! And your belief in an eternal universe only escapes the Kalam Cosmological argument, not the Liebnitzian from sufficient reason or Aquinas’ from existential causality.

It is not ‘faithful’ to believe (i)-(iii) because of the fruit they bear? It is sensible. A common-sense which you appear to be butting up against.

Insofar as you think something is true because it is ‘fruitful’ you commit the fallacy, argumentum ad consequentiam or the Appeal to Consequences. Your admission that you don’t know logic was unnecessary, but thank you.

And of course I think it faithful to common sense to believe in the reliability of senses… I’M A THEIST! (as were the ancient Greeks by the way.) The question is, why do you? I can’t see any reason to think that you should assume the reliability of the senses if you were an atheist.

Oh, unless your willing to embrace self-contradiction and mystery.

No such evidence or argument can be found for God not being self-existent.

Hmmmn. I can see how you end up believeing strange things!
Ultimately, the universe can have had no beginning. Scientists talk about the universe having a begining, but they do not mean the ‘universe’ as in absolutely everything. This becomes immediately obvious when you ask them what could have caused the universe. For example, if the universe had a beginning there must have been something before it. And that something-before-it must be part of the universe by the definition of ‘universe’. There is a necessarily self-contradiction and mystery here. I embrace that.

I still think the idea that there is an uncaused cause is ad-hoc. We NEVER observe uncaused causes; we know this. There is no call for one.

Sorry to dissapoint you but “Everything is natural” is not an empirical statement. It is a faith commitment, and will remain so until you have observed simultaneously and comprehended all that exists

Yawn. It is also a statement of faith that mass attracts mass. We have had quite enough baseless claims of the supernatural over the centuries. The longer we go on without evidence the more certain the statement “Everything is Natural” becomes.

…..I personally know a few people who have witnessed or personally experienced miraculous circumstances……

None of your ‘evidence’ here would be considered seriously by the science which you so zealously claim for christianity. Come up with some actual evidence or just don’t bother.

should Christianity suddenly disappear it would leave the presuppositions it has so thoroughly engrained into the culture.

Lol. Those same ones that the Greeks believed?!

What I think you don’t appreciate is without Christianity (or at least a theistic worldview) any instance of beliefs (i) through (iii) are exceptions and not the rule.

Again, I’m not going to disagree that christianity had a fair amount to do with science. But I DO think that knowledge would have ramped up eventually.Why? Because we seem, as brains, to have this wonderful ability to observe ourselves. Allow me to expand: At first the assumptions (i)-(iii) would have been implicit. People just assumed them and noticed the patterns in nature – say, for instance, in crop planting. Then people notice the pattern of patterns. They notice that there is more than just crops which follow order; cause and effect. So then they start asserting that much more/all of nature follows logic/order/cause&effect! In this way our ability to make meta-observations would eventually have led to the assertion (i)-(iii). It leads, eventually, to the statment in your last quote of me: the sucess of the assumptions is now an observed fact in and of itself.

I don’t know of your ‘logical’ audits. I think that maybe you are just scared of admitting something. What I know is this. People the world over – religious, non-religious, whatever – can see the order in the world around them. And in seeing it, they are assuming (i)-(iii). And if you hounded them and demand, as you do, why assume them? they would essentially answer “by their fruit”.

You seem to spend a lot of your time trying to justify yourself, Stuart, by backtracking and picking things apart and rebuilding them. You have it backwards, poor chap! It is not ‘faithful’ to believe (i)-(iii) because of the fruit they bear. It is sensible. A common-sense which you appear to be butting up against.

The self-extant thing is just nonsense. God is the ONE thing that is self-extant. That is, almost by definition, ad-hoc. It is just as ad-hoc as caliming that the universe always existed.

The comparison you make between God being self-existent and the universe being eternal is nonsense. The universe has good scientific evidence and philosophical arguments that show beyond reasonable doubt that it had a beginning. No such evidence or argument can be found for God not being self-existent. And as I noted above – a point on which you have failed to address – the cosmological arguments are immune to this criticism as their premises conclude a necessary (self-existent) being.

As it happens God is not the only thing that is self-existent. The laws of logic, like the law of non-contradiction, are self-existent. Certain truth claims are self existent, like “There is no such thing as a married bachelor.” Philosophers who think that numbers exist also think that numbers are self-existent. A Platonist would say that forms are self-existent (in fact you yourself have affirmed Atheistic Moral Platonism which is itself affirming the existence of self-existent and necessary things – see comment # 27 October 2009 at 4:35 pm).

But even if it is claimed that God is the ONLY self-existent thing, that does not make such a claim ad hoc. For there may be other reasons why God is believed to be self-existent. Such as his self-disclosure to Moses somewhere in the middle of the 15th century B.C. (so much for an “after-the-fact” justification), the voice of the burning bush saying “I AM that I AM” (Exo 3:14). Such as his self-disclosure in Jesus Christ, who spoke the words of John 5:26, “The Father has life in himself.” Such as other scriptures which speak to God’s self-existence. Such as a deduction from other attributes, including eternality, and immateriality. Such as from the conclusions of the cosmological arguments.

Now you are just word games. “Everything is natural” is an empirical statment.

Sorry to dissapoint you but “Everything is natural” is not an empirical statement. It is a faith commitment, and will remain so until you have observed simultaneously and comprehended all that exists. But if you could do that, the statement would be false, as you would be God. Your clarification is likewise just as woefully misconceived;

All it means is that everything we observe has no properties which could be called supernatural.

First, note that this revision is not equivalent to “Everything is natural.” Second, I wonder if you have sufficiently observed the field to be able to declare this with confidence? As for myself, I personally know a few people who have witnessed or personally experienced miraculous circumstances such as healing, documented by medical experts, which to my mind is of that class to decisively place it beyond doubt that some of what we observe is not natural. Third, this fails to appreciate that God primarily works through secondary-causation. Fourth, it also fails to appreciate all the arguments of natural theology, to which it is evident you take no cognisance of. Fifth, this revised statement does not lead to the conclusion “The modern science which you so wish to claim refutes the supernatural.” How does science refute God? It seems to me that even if modern science is committed to the presupposition of methodological naturalism (which, by the way, I do think it is), it still does not refute the claim that God exists. Note also that in order for one thing to refute another, it needs an argument. What is the argument here? Perhaps you could grace us with a syllogism?

So imagine the scenario, then, where religion disappeared off the planet all of a sudden. All that was left were secularists. Now, are you really saying that these secularists would start to say “Oh, I don’t think I can trust my senses anymore.” I do not think that you really believe that, Stuart.

You are partly right and partly wrong. You are right when you say “I do not think that you really believe that, Stuart.” That part is true at least. I think this because should Christianity suddenly disappear it would leave the presuppositions it has so thoroughly engrained into the culture. These would no longer be able to be grounded rationally, just as they cannot be by naturalism now, but as long as (iii) continues to be assumed people will trust their senses.

You are wrong in that your thought experiment doesn’t go far enough. The correct scenario to image would be if the effects of Christianity were removed altogether from society from, say the middle of the fifteenth century (perhaps we should go further and remove religion altogether from history). In this scenario, there would be no Protestant reformation – or Catholicism either – and probably no printing press. Would, then, modern science have been able to arise out of the mud? Well, any answer – yours, mine, anyone – will be speculation. But for me I think not. Things I suspect would have carried on as usual – a slow and gradual increase in the tech and knowledge base, rather than the rapid increase which the emergence of modern science produced. Bright sparks few and far between in an unbroken era of general darkness.

What I think you don’t appreciate is without Christianity (or at least a theistic worldview) any instance of beliefs (i) through (iii) are exceptions and not the rule. Christian theology became so prevalent in the cultural milieu of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth century that these assumptions became the norm, such that even an atheist could participate in the scientific revolution. Such that even you today can comfortably assume (i) through (iii) and believe it rational, even though you have disposed of the means to make it reasonable.

I don’t see why it is a large leap of faith to observe that: “Assuming (i)-(iii) has brought such a wealth of knowledge and advancement to society. Therefore (i)-(iii) must be true beliefs. They are clearly a TRUE description of the world we inhabit.“

Put syllogistically;
[1] Assuming (i)-(iii) has brought such a wealth of knowledge and advancement to society
[2] Therefore (i)-(iii) must be true beliefs.

Its clear to any student of logic this is not an argument worthy of annotating. For one thing, its seems to be missing a premise. For another, [1] does not lead to [2], and commits the fallacy argumentum ad consequentiam, where one evaluates the truth of a belief on the basis of that beliefs (positive or negative) effect, called the Appeal to Consequences. Truths can be both detrimental and beneficial. Lies likewise.

Another syllogistic rendering;
[1] Assuming (i)-(iii) has brought such a wealth of knowledge and advancement to society
[2] They are clearly a TRUE description of the world we inhabit.
[3] Therefore (i)-(iii) must be true beliefs.

This is blatant Begging the Question. Well… what else can I make of the quoted statement above?

Without good reason to believe (i) though (iii), why assume them? Should I quote back to your own words, “You could do a lot better by just sticking to what you can be sure to know. All the rest is almost certainly wrong”, or should I reiterate that (i) through (iii) are, if held by the secularist, just as much faith commitments as what the village atheist charges a Christian’s belief in God to be? Perhaps I would do both… if I hadn’t already.

The self-extant thing is just nonsense. God is the ONE thing that is self-extant. That is, almost by definition, ad-hoc. It is just as ad-hoc as caliming that the universe always existed.

This is so foolish, I’m inclined to believe you misspoke. Forgive me, but if “every possible thing” is natural, then supernatural entities such as God, angels, etc, are necessarily not-possible, which is to say impossible.

Now you are just word games. “Everything is natural” is an empirical statment. All it means is that everything we observe has no properties which could be called supernatural. The modern science which you so wish to claim refutes the supernatural.

Now if the Greeks did believe (i) through (iii) then I will admit on that score it was I who misspoke. Still, Christian theology grounded these assumptions like no other before, which provided suitable conditions for modern science to be born and flourish.

Ah, glad we agree about the Greeks. I put it to you that any advance in knowledge assumes these three, not just the Greeks.
The bold part is a mistake. Even if the Greeks did not explicitly believe (i)-(iii), they did so implicitly; they had to, there is just no way that knowledge could be pursued otherwise.

Now if secularism was successful in expunging all religion, especially Christianity, from society, could modern science continue? Sure… if those assumptions remained. But as naturalism, nor atheism can rationally affirm (i) through (iii) – that is, neither can ground those assumptions with sound reasons – modern science’s prospects do not look promising. Now if the secularist in his or her utopian future can assume (i) through (iii) fine – good for them. But without reasons to ground those assumptions, lets not pretend that the naturalist then, is making just as large a leap-of-faith as they accuse Christians of making.

So imagine the scenario, then, where religion disappeared off the planet all of a sudden. All that was left were secularists. Now, are you really saying that these secularists would start to say “Oh, I don’t think I can trust my senses anymore.” I do not think that you really believe that, Stuart.
I don’t see why it is a large leap of faith to observe that: “Assuming (i)-(iii) has brought such a wealth of knowledge and advancement to society. Therefore (i)-(iii) must be true beliefs. They are clearly a TRUE description of the world we inhabit.“