"Scientific" theistic arguments

[ydoaPs]

You argued that everything has beginnings. I pointed out that they don't, because of conservation laws, and that nothing in fact begins or ends, so your initial claim that material "must have a beginning" because of overwhelming evidence is wrong.

It's like when WLC claims he can justify (1) of Kalam by inductive inference. Even given a valid method of induction(which is a HUGE given as no one has been able to find one thusfar), this is not the case. To take something from a specific case to a general case, one must have a specific case from which to generalize! We simply have no known instances of something being cause to exist ex nihilo. Any claim of induction on this matter is either ignorance or equivocation.

 

Conservation laws combined with several cosmological models do infact suggest that the universe COULD have an infinite past.

 

However, even if the universe began to exist ex nihilo, it does not imply it had a cause. If the total energy of universe is zero(which the cosmological background radiation data suggests), then the universe very well could have popped into existence causelessly.

 

So, what he have here is that (1) is completely unsupported and (2) could go either way. Kalam isn't a scientific argument; it merely pretends to be.

 

Thus: Why did the light come on when I flicked the switch? The light fairy unmasked her magic lantern at the signal. Or did the light gremlin direct the sun god to shine in the room? Or did the ghost of deceased light particles suddenly revive as the sound of the switch flicking reminded him of the good old days? etc., etc. The debates would never end and all theorizing would bog down in an uncontrollable proliferation of immaterial hypotheses.

And that is why modus tollens and the scientific method are so important. We depend on falsification to eliminate what is NOT true! Those who say "You can't prove a negative!" don't know what they're talking about; science relies on proving negatives and eliminating them from the possible answers.

 

p->q

~q

~p

 

The truth of my statement does not depend on the definition of supernatural. Theists make science based and evidence based arguments. Your claim is false and yet another example of how atheists don't fight fair.

 

Cypress, since Kalam obviously isn't the scientific argument for theism that you claimed theists use, care to provide the one you claimed exists?