Oh, that’s different, and much, much easier. Its because no external, supernatural cause has been observed.
Mintaka
At present we don’t know. Does that mean we will never know? We are back to the god of the gaps and the gaps are getting small. If I was a betting man I would bet on science - it got the answers so far.
I’m sorry, but that’s run-of-the-uninformed-mill creationist baloney. Observations that negate or challenge universal expansion would do the trick. Tweefo has pointed you at more information.
I’m sorry, but that’s more run-of-the-uninformed-mill creationist baloney. Mintaka has mentioned just one way. Another would be to present some species whose genomes show no relation to any others. There are several other ways to falsify macroevolution (a term that is in any case a creationist straw man) drawn from different biological disciplines.
It’s sad, then, for those who are keen on using such slippery ersatz methods, that in science physical evidence (objective, repeatable, tangible, observable, measurable) is the chief judge.
No, I’m afraid it’s hardly enough. I suspect that you know this quite well too, and are attempting to keep your options open for later. Hypocritically, you seek to reject the Big Bang and macroevolution as scientifically valid explanations by labelling them, erroneously, as “unfalsifiable.” You demand such rigour of the scientific consensus but not for your own feeble position!? Clearly, you mean to posit your “god” as a valid scientific explanation for certain observable phenomena but if you cannot give a philosophically/scientifically rigorous and falsifiable definition or account of this “explanation,” you don’t even make it past the philosophical or scientific starting line, and you’re just a nuisance on the playing field.
If you’re asking a scientific question, then the answers are the Big Bang, abiogenesis and biological evolution. As for why, it’s because (a) the evidence supporting those theories (“scientific theories,” not “hunches” or “guesses”) is compelling, (b) relevant scientific experts largely agree, and (c) the evidence in favour of your contentions is pathetic at best. If, instead, you’re asking an ontological question such as why there is something rather than nothing or why this particular universe, then the answer is that I don’t know. But you don’t know either. And the knowledge and evidence presently available to us, whether scientific or philosophical, is insufficient to pose your very probably false dilemma of no-one-knows-therefore-god-did-it, let alone to establish the existence of what you mean to argue into reality.
It hardly follows that since we would dearly like there to be an explanation, there must be one accessible to us. The universe is not required to heed our wishes. We should be humbly cautious in extrapolating our everyday feelings and experiences of a minuscule fraction of the universe into eternal and/or universal truths. “Cause” in connection with the manufacture of universes may be something completely unknown or even incomprehensible to us. Feel free to call that “god” if you wish (but do not please pretend to know any of this entity’s attributes), in which case “god” is just a three-letter word for “ignorance” – as, in fact, it’s always been. And if you say that we and our universe’s existences demand an explanation, then your “creator/intelligent designer” demands one in at least equal measure.
… then the onus of proof falls squarely on you for making an unproved, positive existence claim that such a thing is needed. Be warned that this onus has the weight of a few centuries’ worth of scientific progress, though – progress where not one single event has ever inescapably required your “god.”
Nobody knows. You don’t either. Please define “cause and effect” with particular reference to making universes. Why complicate matters by positing something that raises many more questions than it feigns to answer satisfactorily?
Not so. We can only accept as true that which is supported by sufficient evidence. But you’re still much confused by this “positive existence claim” and “burden of proof” issue. Your silly position would be much like me saying that since you don’t know who the progenitors of my cat are, I am justified in asking you for proof that my cat is not the product of feline reproduction.
And you need first to specify exactly what kind of evidence would convince you that a “creator/intelligent designer” isn’t required because, obviously, you deem extant scientific accounts to be inadequate.
'Luthon64
Is it my imagination or have I read these arguments before? Old troll new name??
No, it’s because these people always rehash the same stale drivel, thinking that it’s new or that repeating it often enough will somehow make it true.
'Luthon64
Not sure. But even if it is, I do enjoy following these threads and discovering new words like “ersatz”. ;D
For others like myself:
an artificial or inferior substitute or imitation
Mintaka
since when is a universe expansion the only evidence we need to evidence the Big Bang as its proposed ?
I’m sorry, but that’s more run-of-the-uninformed-mill creationist baloney. Mintaka has mentioned just one way. Another would be to present some species whose genomes show no relation to any others.
[/quote]
thats shifting the goal posts. who makes the claim, needs to provide evidence. And falsifiable evidence of macro-evolution does not exist.
since when is only operational science a valid source for information, to form a world view ?
where did i say that ?
You demand such rigour of the scientific consensus but not for your own feeble position!?
neither did i say that.
Clearly, you mean to posit your “god” as a valid scientific explanation for certain observable phenomena but if you cannot give a philosophically/scientifically rigorous and falsifiable definition or account of this “explanation,” you don’t even make it past the philosophical or scientific starting line, and you’re just a nuisance on the playing field.
I have made no assumption at all so far. This topic should not be about MY position, but about yours…
so did the Big Bang cause itself ?
abiogenesis
please show the scientific evidence, that makes abiogenesis a plausible explanation.
and biological evolution.
same as above.
As for why, it’s because (a) the evidence supporting those theories (“scientific theories,” not “hunches” or “guesses”)
could you present them ? best would be the key part, which convinces you these explanations are true. no video, or link…i wont spend my time on it. just post it here, resumed.
If, instead, you’re asking an ontological question such as why there is something rather than nothing or why [i]this[/i] particular universe, then the answer is that I don’t know.
why do you think no purpose might be in the game ?
It hardly follows that since we would dearly like there to be an explanation, there must be one accessible to us
[/quote]
how about our modern scientific , and philosphical research. Is it truly that under developed, that no reasonable statements and conclusions can be made ?
The universe is not required to heed our wishes. We should be humbly cautious in extrapolating our everyday feelings and experiences of a minuscule fraction of the universe into eternal and/or universal truths. “Cause” in connection with the manufacture of universes may be something completely unknown or even incomprehensible to us.
the law of cause and effect is unbroken so far. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. All our empirical experience leads us to that view. If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause.
Feel free to call that “god” if you wish (but do not please pretend to know any of this entity’s attributes), in which case “god” is just a three-letter word for “ignorance” – as, in fact, it’s [i]always[/i] been. And if you say that we and our universe’s existences demand an explanation, then your “creator/intelligent designer” demands one in at least equal measure.
this topic is not about god/creator/intelligent designer, but about your explanation of the existence of our universe. lets keep on topic.
[quote="Jahaziel post:14, topic:3534"] If you make the claim, you present the evidence. If you claim no creator/inteligent [[i]sic[/i]] designer is needed to create the univere [[i]sic[/i]]… [/quote] … then the onus of proof falls squarely on you for making an unproved, positive existence claim that such a thing is needed. Be warned that this onus has the weight of a few centuries’ worth of scientific progress, though – progress where not one single event has ever inescapably [i]required[/i] your “god.”
why is it that difficult just to answer my question ? if you are unable to keep on track of this topic, just do not participate…
[quote="Jahaziel post:16, topic:3534"] So did the big bang cause itself ? was it cause and effect at the same time ? [/quote] Nobody knows. You don’t either. Please define “cause and effect” with particular reference to making universes. Why complicate matters by positing something that raises many more questions than it feigns to answer satisfactorily?
everthing that begins to exist, needs a cause. if the universe had a beginning with the big bang, why should the universe be excluded from this rule ?
[quote="Jahaziel post:18, topic:3534"] But IF you claim no designer/creator is needed, you should be able to explain, how the universe came to be by itself. [/quote] Not so. We can only accept as true that which is supported by sufficient evidence. But you’re still much confused by this “positive existence claim” and “burden of proof” issue.
what makes it to you so difficult to understand my question , and just answer it, if you have a answer to it ? i am not asking for proof, i am asking for evidence that support the claim, the universe is self sustained.
Your silly position would be much like me saying that since you don’t know who the progenitors of my cat are, I am justified in asking you for proof that my cat is not the product of feline reproduction.
again : this topic is not about my position, its about yours, we want to exam here… capiche ?
And you need first to specify exactly what kind of evidence would convince you that a “creator/intelligent designer” isn’t required because, obviously, you deem extant scientific accounts to be inadequate.
[/quote]
logical, rational, scientific and philosophical answers would do it well.
i am not a socketpuppet. I an new at this forum. eventually someone else raised the same questions, or presented similar answer, but it was not me.
No evidence for god.
Jahaziel, your post of 19:54:47 today contains several errors and distortions of various kinds, which I won’t go into because evidently you are incapable of grasping a crucial elementary epistemological truth, namely that if you want successfully to challenge a scientific position, you had better put something forward that is at least as good – where “good” is to be read with its various aspects in the context of science’s standards and requirements. That requirement is part of the method and foundation of science. If that is too highbrow for you, don’t expect me to be drawn into your lightweight games of intellectual ping-pong. Further, it’s a bit presumptuous that you feel entitled to challenge what you haven’t bothered to inform yourself of, and then expect members of this forum to spoon-feed you information that is freely available and easily accessible should you have a genuine interest in finding out.
You ask for evidence that a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) isn’t required to explain our universe’s or our own existence. Fine. The answer is rather obvious: the evidence you seek, whether you accept it or not, is the entire corpus of existing, well-established, successful science which has never needed such a thing. A “god” is not proven to exist, evidence is scant for any role it allegedly has played or plays, a great many observable phenomena are fruitfully explicable without recourse to any such ideas, and science, by its methodological rigour, prohibits us from invoking unproven hypotheses as explanations. Sure, there are many profound unsolved problems in science and philosophy but a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) doesn’t solve them. Just the opposite, actually – it compounds them.
Now unless you’re somehow weirdly violating the law of the excluded middle (which would require some serious clarification), challenging science to prove that a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) isn’t necessary, translates, by direct and inescapable implication, into making a positive existence claim for such an entity. If it is not true that a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) is not required, then … well, maybe you can work it out for yourself. It’s no good trying to slip past that implication with assorted verbal tricks. Consequently and unfortunately for you, it’s then immediately up to you to prove how your contrary position is superior, notwithstanding the lessons in underhanded table-turning by rubber ducks.
'Luthon64
and what evidence do you have that our universe caused itself ?
please poin them out.
which I won’t go into because evidently you are incapable of grasping a crucial elementary epistemological truth, namely that if you want successfully to challenge a scientific position
you have just mentioned the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and biological evolution as scientific position. But you have failed so far, do show that
- the Big Bang avoids God in the equation ( to do so, you should explain how the universe could be cause and effect at the same time )
- abiogenesis is indeed a valid theory with scientific evidence
- that biological evolution or neodarwinism is true.
you had better put something forward that is at least as good – where “good” is to be read with its various aspects in the context of science’s standards and requirements.
this topic is about your position , and its justification, not mine. You continue to insist on that. i don’t know why. So hard to elaborate a consistent positive case for your postition ?
That requirement is part of the method and foundation of science.
why do you limit my request on science ? i perfectly accept philosophical answers, if you have, and actually, in my book, should have.
If that is too highbrow for you, don’t expect me to be drawn into your lightweight games of intellectual ping-pong.
Who has done that is you so far. Not been capable just to stay on topic. Hard, hmm ??!!
Further, it’s a bit presumptuous that you feel entitled to challenge what you haven’t bothered to inform yourself of
how do you know ? do you know me, and the research i have done so far ? maibe THAT be presumptious from you , to claim about me.
and then expect members of this forum to spoon-feed you information that is freely available and easily accessible should you have a genuine interest in finding out.
I am genuinly interested about YOUR motivations. My position is firm like a rock 
You ask for evidence that a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) isn’t required to explain our universe’s or our own existence.
To make things easyer, lets just remain on the position, the universe caused itself, or has existed forever without a cause. That is the position you must endorse, if a creator has to be kept out of the equation. Explanations about this position, how that is possible, is the topic of this thread.
Fine. The answer is rather obvious: the evidence you seek, whether you accept it or not, is the entire corpus of existing, well-established, successful science which has [i]never[/i] needed such a thing.
Modern science by definition endorses philosophical naturalism, and actually does not even aloud supernatural explanations. By far it has not all answers. thats why a consistent view of yours would have to be based also on philosophy. Science alone is very limited in its capability to give us broad answers to establish a consistent world view.
A “god” is not proven to exist, evidence is scant for any role it allegedly has played or plays, a great many observable phenomena are fruitfully explicable without recourse to any such ideas,
expose them :
and science, by its methodological rigour, prohibits us from invoking unproven hypotheses as explanations.
neodarwinism and the big bang theory isnt proven either, but sustained by modern science.
Sure, there are many profound unsolved problems in science and philosophy but a “god” (or, much more likely, your own favourite idea of such) doesn’t solve them.
and naturalism does solve it ? if so, expose them…
I think you are right - one would need to produce a positive proposition to the exclusion of the negative one. I am convinced that the awkward structure of the question does not change the burden of proof away from the positive claimant to the negative. However, should one wish to present the proof which Jahaziel mistakenly believes he is entitled to, the required level of proof would become an interesting topic. My view is that all that would be needed, would be to show that an alternative explanation to creationism (say for instance the big bang or the flying spaghetti monster) can be cited. It would not be necessary to prove that it actually occurred to demonstrate that “God is not needed to explain our existence”. Whether the explanation is a load of bullshit is immaterial. This is the kind of conundrum that may result from juggling semantics.
Am I sensing a Phroner-cloner here hmm ??!!
- Instructions in the first post as to what is or is not allowed in the thread.
- Brand new on the forum yet ordering everyone about.
- Avoidance of stating his own position.
- Common Phronetic expressions hmm??!!
- Crappy speling and grama.
- Excessive awe of “Philosophy” as superior to “Science”.
- Dodgy English in half-witted statements eg:
“Modern science… does not even aloud supernatural explanations.”
Same views, but less literate and more sloppy.
Nah, it was already established that
i am not a socketpuppet.
Wether imperial or metric, I cannot tell.
Mintaka
No, you keep on saying we have to answer the original question. Read carefully - NO EVIDENCE.
None as blind as they who will not see. It has been done by several posters here. Spelling and grammar isn’t your only problem is it?
- the Big Bang avoids God in the equation ( to do so, you should explain how the universe could be cause and effect at the same time ) - abiogenesis is indeed a valid theory with scientific evidence - that biological evolution or neodarwinism [sic] is true.Who avoids God in anything? So far it is simply a non issue - we are still waiting for you to tell us why it isn't. Why we have to take the assertion seriously in the first place.
this topic is about your position , and its justification, not mine. You continue to insist on that. i [sic] don't know why. So hard to elaborate a consistent positive case for your postition [sic] ?Quite phrony like, I must say. Why ever do you think we need positive confirmation for some thing's non existence, especially one as nebulous as a God? Next you'll be requiring positive evidence that Santa, the Easter Bunny and the grmylingok doesn't exist either :-\ Something you yourself cannot provide even though your probably have a negative position to all three's existence.
I am genuinly [sic] interested about YOUR motivations. My position is firm like a rock ;)As is your head. Neither is a good thing...
To make things easyer [sic], lets just remain on the position, the universe caused itself, or has existed forever without a cause. That is the position you must endorse, if a creator has to be kept out of the equation. Explanations about this position, how that is possible, is the topic of this thread.I don't know. Neither do you. Neither does any one else. So what? Inquiring minds are looking into it. Maybe they'll have an answer one day, maybe they won't. Neither case is positive evidence *for* a creator.
Modern science by definition endorses philosophical naturalism, and actually does not even aloud [sic] supernatural explanations. By far it has not all answers. thats [sic] why a consistent view of yours would have to be based also on philosophy. Science alone is very limited in its capability to give us broad answers to establish a consistent world view.Every answer we have, we can chalk up to science. Limited as you may think that happens to be. Unless you can provide something science *hasn't* answered, something that your, I don't know, theology(?) actually has??
neodarwinism [sic] and the big bang theory isnt [sic] proven either, but sustained by modern science.ha ha ha ha
You haven’t said much of anything really - a few well known and easily debunked canards, a refusal to accept the burden of proof and atrocious spelling. About par for this particular course.
I cannot tell you how the universe came to be by itself. Because I don’t know that it did or didn’t. It is easy and honest for me to admit ignorance. What is fucking disingenuous at best, is to claim knowledge where non is forthcoming.
I don’t know is a valid and true answer. Making shit up, never is and never will be.
Why is a God necessary for our universe to exist? Please answer this simple question now.
@Jahaziel: I’ve learned to shut up when I don’t know enough about a particular subject, but here’s a cool video on the evidence for the Big Bang: Enjoy :-*