Consciousness with Josh from Theologyweb

[Richard]

I am fully 100% on board with science... It's naturalism, the faith that science is the only thing that reveals truth, that is erroneous.

When trying to understand reality, I see science as the only viable option. What do you see?

[tonyenglish7]

I am fully 100% on board with science... It's naturalism, the faith that science is the only thing that reveals truth, that is erroneous.

When trying to understand reality, I see science as the only viable option. What do you see?

You have to use science, but also other tools of being human come into play, i.e. personhood, consciousness, logic, love, beauty, language, philosophy, morals, and meaning with conclusions. Science can tell you what the wavelength of blue is, but the emotion that a person feels and the color that is seen by the first person is not something science is capable of even dealing with. It is like asking what does blue taste like? Nonsensical. That is the issue I am discussing, naturalism. Dawkins, Hitchens and other admit that the fine tuning of the universe for matter to exist, much less the wide variety of matter is "troublesome" to them. See, the tool of science can help us with how and what the universe is, but not the why.. And isn't the why the most important part of the experience of science? Naturalism presupposes the answer to why. There is no reason, purposelessness is all there is in naturalism. Really? Do you believe that?

[spongebob]

I was not using a creationist source, it was all over the news recently. I am sure it will take more study but the news report said that a study of the galaxies using the Chandra X-ray telescope showed that the amount of dust in an average galaxy was underestimated by about 50% and therefore the brightness of the universe is about twice as much as they thought. This is a huge deal if true because the Calibration of many things is set on this figure of a standard star brightness. I am not a young earther so don't get your panties all up in a wad. I was just commenting on the recent news. It could turn out to be proven wrong with another method of study and still has to be challenged. But it was just an interesting tidbit. In the world of astronomy, it was huge news.... Yea, I agree, science is cool... I am fully 100% on board with science... It's naturalism, the faith that science is the only thing that reveals truth, that is erroneous.

And thanks, Tony, for providing just that little bit of information (the figure "50%", actually). It gave me just enough to figure out what you were talking about. What you are actually referring to is the recent news that astronomers have located some of the missing mass of the universe, 50% of it, in fact. Not really, though. What they found was 50% of the Baryonic mass only, which comprises about 5% of the total mass of the universe. The other 95% is known as dark matter, and we still don't have a clue what or where that stuff is. So far as I know, this discovery has no influence whatsoever on the current calculation for the age of the universe, and I've listened to podcasts and read articles by the scientists who made the discovery, . I think they would certainly have mentioned it if this discovery was bound to make such an enormous impact on science. Oh, and if you want to read even more, just check out the results, which are detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Here's a brief web article on it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902281

Just for further reading, though. You should follow my next link to fully understand how the age of the universe is estimated. So far as I know, dust has nothing to do with it, so even if you had read such an article, it is based on false information.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... eb99_1.htm

Hey, Tony. If you are not a "young earther", then why are you having so much difficulty with evolution? And if you are 100% on board with science, then why are you criticizing it so much? This would be like me saying I'm 100% on board with Christianity, but chunk insults and criticisms at every aspect of it. Some part of what you are saying does not add up.

[spongebob]

When trying to understand reality, I see science as the only viable option. What do you see?

You have to use science, but also other tools of being human come into play, i.e. personhood, consciousness, logic, love, beauty, language, philosophy, morals, and meaning with conclusions. Science can tell you what the wavelength of blue is, but the emotion that a person feels and the color that is seen by the first person is not something science is capable of even dealing with. It is like asking what does blue taste like? Nonsensical.

Tony, aren't you mixing questions here? Do you perceive science, or at least some scientists to be using science to answer emotional questions, or questions of judgment? Science does not attempt to answer questions involving love, philosophy, morals, even meaning, so what's the problem? Why is it a problem for you that science cannot tell a person what a color "feels" like?

That is the issue I am discussing, naturalism. Dawkins, Hitchens and other admit that the fine tuning of the universe for matter to exist, much less the wide variety of matter is "troublesome" to them. See, the tool of science can help us with how and what the universe is, but not the why..

OK, what you are saying here is that you know of two scientists, atheists even, who admit that they don't have the answers to everything. They admit that some things about the universe stumps them. Wow, and this is a problem for you? Weren't you complaining that scientists claim to know everything? Yet here they are admitting that they do not. Where's the problem?

"Naturalism" is not your enemy, Tony. It is nothing more than the starting assumption that everything comes from a purely natural origin, with no supernatural deities pulling the strings. That's it; there's no more to it than that. This forces the scientist to look and test for natural causes to everything he observes instead of stopping and saying, "god did it". If he cannot find a natural cause, then I suppose that opens the door to supernaturalism. But so far, Tony, we have not had to resort to that. The universe has provided natural answers to most of the questions we've asked of it, and there's little reason to suspect that will change any time soon.

And isn't the why the most important part of the experience of science? Naturalism presupposes the answer to why. There is no reason, purposelessness is all there is in naturalism. Really? Do you believe that?

No, Tony. "Why" is not the most important question in science. Science asks "how", not "why". How did the sun form, not why. How did the earth form, not why. How did the continents form, not why. How did humans arise, not why. How did we get cheese into a can, not why. If you need a reason for the universe to exist, then you go find one. No one's stopping you. And you are welcome to share it with others. But mine may be different from yours because this is a subjective question, not an objective one.

[Richard]

You have to use science, but also other tools of being human come into play, i.e. personhood, consciousness, logic, love, beauty, language, philosophy, morals, and meaning with conclusions. Science can tell you what the wavelength of blue is, but the emotion that a person feels and the color that is seen by the first person is not something science is capable of even dealing with.

If cognitive processes are the result of neuro-chemical interactions in the brain, then what would stop science from understanding love, beauty and consciousness?

See, the tool of science can help us with how and what the universe is, but not the why.. And isn't the why the most important part of the experience of science? Naturalism presupposes the answer to why.

You are right, but I'll go a step further and say that science cannot relate to the question "Why...", only philosophy can. Personally I'm starting to believe that the question "Why..." needs a theist assumption to be coherent which makes it invalid in determining theism.

There is no reason, purposelessness is all there is in naturalism. Really? Do you believe that?

YES. I look at the world and this is exactly what I see. Complete ignorance from the universe, and all meaning and purpose constructed by human minds.

[tonyenglish7]

I was not using a creationist source, it was all over the news recently. I am sure it will take more study but the news report said that a study of the galaxies using the Chandra X-ray telescope showed that the amount of dust in an average galaxy was underestimated by about 50% and therefore the brightness of the universe is about twice as much as they thought. This is a huge deal if true because the Calibration of many things is set on this figure of a standard star brightness. I am not a young earther so don't get your panties all up in a wad. I was just commenting on the recent news. It could turn out to be proven wrong with another method of study and still has to be challenged. But it was just an interesting tidbit. In the world of astronomy, it was huge news.... Yea, I agree, science is cool... I am fully 100% on board with science... It's naturalism, the faith that science is the only thing that reveals truth, that is erroneous.

And thanks, Tony, for providing just that little bit of information (the figure "50%", actually). It gave me just enough to figure out what you were talking about. What you are actually referring to is the recent news that astronomers have located some of the missing mass of the universe, 50% of it, in fact. Not really, though. What they found was 50% of the Baryonic mass only, which comprises about 5% of the total mass of the universe. The other 95% is known as dark matter, and we still don't have a clue what or where that stuff is. So far as I know, this discovery has no influence whatsoever on the current calculation for the age of the universe, and I've listened to podcasts and read articles by the scientists who made the discovery, . I think they would certainly have mentioned it if this discovery was bound to make such an enormous impact on science. Oh, and if you want to read even more, just check out the results, which are detailed in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. Here's a brief web article on it here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6902281

Just for further reading, though. You should follow my next link to fully understand how the age of the universe is estimated. So far as I know, dust has nothing to do with it, so even if you had read such an article, it is based on false information.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlin ... eb99_1.htm

Hey, Tony. If you are not a "young earther", then why are you having so much difficulty with evolution? And if you are 100% on board with science, then why are you criticizing it so much? This would be like me saying I'm 100% on board with Christianity, but chunk insults and criticisms at every aspect of it. Some part of what you are saying does not add up.

Yea, I didn't really research the dust issue that much but this was on the news on the radio when I was driving and I didn't really study it. It was a very recent discovery and it was stating that if proven right, the significance was huge because it meant the standard star brightness was off by a huge amount. I will look around and see if I can find the source. It was on the normal news here at KFI radio, a secular station with no agenda. It said in the report that if proven correct, the age of the universe would be adjusted from 13.7 Billion to between 9 and 10 billion. I remember the report clearly and it was also repeated again somewhere else but now I can't remember where. If I find the source, I will let you know. Obviously that would be huge news if true. The links you provided are not what was reported on the news.

I think the bigger and the older the universe, the more God is glorified and man is humiliated. So, my horse is on the universe being older and bigger. I just mentioned that because I thought it was interesting news. It may have been a mis-interpretation of some study that the bone-headed media pick up on. We will see...

I am not a young earther but I have a problem with evolution because evolution has two legs that need to be supported. One is the theory of life from non-life. How did life begin? The first leg doesn't even have a theory as to how that could have happened in such a short time as 4.5 Billion years given the conditions on earth and subsequent changes therein. The second leg is the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion only 500 million years ago had all 70 phyla in it all of a sudden out of nowhere. There is no Darwinian evolution involved. If anything, it has to be "punctuated equilibrium" yet that doesn't have any theoretical value either. We all know that there was some "evolution" if you want to call it that as far as species changing to survive and adapting. This is clear. Yet there is no evidence of macro evolution on the level of what is believed by the masses today.

So the universe had to be a certain age for the components of life to be in existence (heavier elements) and since time is not an issue for God, I think he simply chose to use that method to reveal his greatness and creative nature. The heavens declare the glory of God

But the fine tuning of the universe, (it could have and should have been just slightly different in many different categories), and the complexity of the "programmed" information within the cell, make it impossible for evolution to be the answer. This is now the modern creation myth yet it is in crisis and it will interesting to see what happens in the next few years as more and more scientist come to the reality of the problem.

I have a very high level question for you, this is going to take a high level of scientific sophistication to understand how to answer this important question. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

[spongebob]

I remember the report clearly and it was also repeated again somewhere else but now I can't remember where. If I find the source, I will let you know. Obviously that would be huge news if true. The links you provided are not what was reported on the news.

I would greatly appreciate that, Tony. I have no information about this, but my guess is that something has been misunderstood.

I think the bigger and the older the universe, the more God is glorified and man is humiliated. So, my horse is on the universe being older and bigger. I just mentioned that because I thought it was interesting news. It may have been a mis-interpretation of some study that the bone-headed media pick up on. We will see...

That's an interesting position, Tony. Most Christians would oppose you on this position, btw. The Big Bang, the beginning of the universe, is usually a hinge point for theists to declare god's beginning to creation. An infinite universe doesn't play into that very well. And a universe that is 50 billion yrs old doesn't support a theistic beginning any more than 14 billion or 4 billion. If it were only 10,000 yrs old, that would certainly be different.

I am not a young earther but I have a problem with evolution because evolution has two legs that need to be supported. One is the theory of life from non-life. How did life begin? The first leg doesn't even have a theory as to how that could have happened in such a short time as 4.5 Billion years given the conditions on earth and subsequent changes therein.

Tony, you've stated this before and it has been properly refuted. I'm going to do so again and I want you to hear it clearly. If you have information that clearly disposes this, then please bring it. Otherwise, you need to see the poor logic and lack of scientific data in your comments. The Theory of Evolution does not include in it any theory of the origin of life. Many conjectures about the origin exist, but the evolutionary model could work with any one of them. In fact, the evolutionary model could even work just fine if god created life billions of years ago on earth or some other planet. Evolutionary theory works very well within the 4.5 billion year history of the earth. There is a literal mountain of evidence at your fingertips if you would just learn about it. So, that should clear up you misunderstanding on this.

The second leg is the fossil record. The Cambrian explosion only 500 million years ago had all 70 phyla in it all of a sudden out of nowhere. There is no Darwinian evolution involved. If anything, it has to be "punctuated equilibrium" yet that doesn't have any theoretical value either. We all know that there was some "evolution" if you want to call it that as far as species changing to survive and adapting. This is clear. Yet there is no evidence of macro evolution on the level of what is believed by the masses today.

Tony, The Cambrian explosion was not the beginning of life on earth and we have plenty of fossils to demonstrate that. The explosion merely represents a sudden (in geological scale) burst of diversity. In actuality, this "burst" occurred over 80 million years. And we have a well documented geological explanation of how this occurred, the conditions that allowed it to happen. There have actually been other "bursts" of evolution, btw. The Cambrian isn't the only one.

Punctuated evolution is quite valid, but it most certainly does not falsify Darwin's theories; it compliments them. In fact, Darwin himself seemed to have anticipated such a modification. Just read his books and you'll see. Next you seem to dismiss PE as having no "theoretical value". I don't understand what you mean by that. If you mean there's no evidence to support it, wrong again. There is; look it up. Next you do the tired old "no macro evolution" argument. Again, wrong. Plenty of evidence to support it; just look it up. If you choose to reject it as most creationists do, that's fine. Just know that you are claiming to know something that the vast number of professional scientists who work in evolutionary fields don't know, and I just doubt that's true. Yield to the scientists; they know what they are doing.

So the universe had to be a certain age for the components of life to be in existence (heavier elements) and since time is not an issue for God, I think he simply chose to use that method to reveal his greatness and creative nature.

The formation of the elements fits nicely into the big bang theory, no problem. No need for supernatural explanations there.

But the fine tuning of the universe, (it could have and should have been just slightly different in many different categories),

Hold it, you said "could have and should have" been different. Yes, it's possible that the physical laws of the universe could have been different. But should have? Tony, how do you know this? Where did you get this information? You cannot just make such profound assertions with no data to back it up. Data, please?

and the complexity of the "programmed" information within the cell, make it impossible for evolution to be the answer.

There is no evidence that information has been programmed into cells (I think you mean DNA). That is a conjecture and has no support. You need evidence to make this sound impressive. In fact, the massive amount of evolutionary evidence generally falsifies such flimsy assertions. The "front loading" argument by Wonders has some chance at surviving, but even it has no evidence to support it thus far. Tony, this is the most important thing about science: YOU NEED EVIDENCE.

This is now the modern creation myth yet it is in crisis and it will interesting to see what happens in the next few years as more and more scientist come to the reality of the problem.

Tony, myths are not supported by evidence, evolution is. For evolution to be in crisis, the consensus of scientists would have to be in jeopardy of falling apart. That is not happening. And yes, it will be exciting to watch as new discoveries are made. I will make a prediction now. In 10 years time, virtually every question you have posed will be definitively answered except for the origin of life. Just keep up and you will not be disappointed.

I have a very high level question for you, this is going to take a high level of scientific sophistication to understand how to answer this important question. What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Tony, that is a stupid and insulting question. I thought you were taking this stuff seriously.

[Richard]

I am not a young earther but I have a problem with evolution because evolution has two legs that need to be supported.

Tony,
You have a problem with evolution, because if it's true, you are not special any more. The universe was not created with you in mind. There is no benevolent ruler of this universe, or at least he doesn't care about suffering. These are the things that really bother you about evolution. And I can only agree, but based on the evidence the conclusion is pretty clear.

[tonyenglish7]

A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?'

The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and then all mankind was made.'

Two days later the girl asked her father the same question.

The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.’

The confused girl returned to her mother and said, ‘Mom how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys.’

The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.'

[tonyenglish7]

In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible. Some or most of these are within a few hundreths of a percent of what they could be. These all have to be exactly what they are for life to be possible. Dawkins himself considers this the most difficult issue to deal with.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Ratio of proton to electron charge
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
Ratio of space energy density to mass density
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between galaxy clusters
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Numbers, sizes, and locations of cosmic voids
Electromagnetic fine structure constant
Gravitational fine-structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass values for the active neutrinos
Number of different species of active neutrinos
Number of active neutrinos in the universe
Mass value for the sterile neutrino
Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars cease to form
Number density of metal-free pop III stars
Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
Flatness of universe's geometry
Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
Constancy of dark energy factors
Epoch for star formation peak
Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
Level of charge-parity violation
Number of galaxies in the observable universe
Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
Water's temperature of maximum density
Water's heat of fusion
Water's heat of vaporization
Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
Location of clumpuscules in the universe
Dioxygen's kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248

[darkumbra]

In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible. Some or most of these are within a few hundreths of a percent of what they could be. These all have to be exactly what they are for life to be possible. Dawkins himself considers this the most difficult issue to deal with.

Strong nuclear force constant
<snip>
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248

Yep... but there's another explanation. Universes are infinite in number. There is a universe for every possible combination of every variable for every item you listed.

AND... it is only in those where life is possible are we able to ponder the question "Wow... look at all the things that have to have happened for us to exist! How did that happen?"

Neither your hypothesis (A grand God of the Gaps did it) nor mine (we just happen to be in a universe that enables that question to be asked) is provable or falsifiable. We is here. We don't know why... we don't even know if asking 'why' makes any sense.

Each to his own poison.

[Richard]

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

[tonyenglish7]

In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine "fine tuning" seems incontrovertible. Some or most of these are within a few hundreths of a percent of what they could be. These all have to be exactly what they are for life to be possible. Dawkins himself considers this the most difficult issue to deal with.

Strong nuclear force constant
<snip>
Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
1 Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248

Yep... but there's another explanation. Universes are infinite in number. There is a universe for every possible combination of every variable for every item you listed.

AND... it is only in those where life is possible are we able to ponder the question "Wow... look at all the things that have to have happened for us to exist! How did that happen?"

Neither your hypothesis (A grand God of the Gaps did it) nor mine (we just happen to be in a universe that enables that question to be asked) is provable or falsifiable. We is here. We don't know why... we don't even know if asking 'why' makes any sense.

Each to his own poison.

At least you understand that your own Metaphysical Naturalism is also a "naturalism of the gaps" so we are one step in the right direction. The thing is, you refuse to look at the evidence rationally or scientifically. The question at hand is, is there a God?; or did everything just happen for no reason without purpose or design by chance? You start out with a worldview commitment that rejects the possibility of God from the starting gate. Is it logically possible that the universe was eternally existent and there are an eternal number of universes? Maybe? That is debatable on several levels which we will not get into here, (it is actually logically falsifiable). But what is the most rational and scientific view? That is the question.

It seems very clear (scientifically) that the universe is not eternal, yet started out in a singularity 10 to 14 Billion years ago. Theories about bubble universes just don't seem to get past the smell test and could not be considered serious or even scientific at this point. Science has measured the approximate energy of the universe, the size, the matter and the age. All theories that had to do with the bouncing universe or the eternal universe have been rejected by the vast majority of scientist. Members of the faithful naturalists continue to speculate about these things but they are mere conjecture and "religious" with no scientific basis whatsoever. The evidence for a beginning is out to 22 decimal places of significance.

Logically the idea of an eternal universe also fails. If the universe were eternally old, we would not be at this date yet... As it would have taken an eternity to get here and that is logically impossible. Now, with the fine tuning being evident, it forces the question, what is more rational in answering the question at hand? i.e., is there a God? When you add in morals, order, personhood, love, freedom, beauty and meaning... It seems like an easy logical answer to me.

You can grip firmly the metaphysical naturalism with a blind faith, hope and the love of darkness, or you can yield to the evidence revealed in science. Your call....

[darkumbra]

At least you understand that your own Metaphysical Naturalism is also a "naturalism of the gaps" so we are one step in the right direction.

You read far too much into my words.

The thing is, you refuse to look at the evidence rationally or scientifically.

Nope. Wrong.

The question at hand is, is there a God?; or did everything just happen for no reason without purpose or design by chance? You start out with a worldview commitment that rejects the possibility of God from the starting gate.

Nope. I start out with the null hypothesis. ie. I do not know.
THEN I look for evidence. And, regardless of what I find, I continue looking for evidence.

Is it logically possible that the universe was eternally existent and there are an eternal number of universes? Maybe? That is debatable on several levels which we will not get into here, (it is actually logically falsifiable). But what is the most rational and scientific view? That is the question.

I saw you palm that card. You state 'we will not get into that here' then you make the statement that multiple universes is falsifiable. Okay. I'm calling your bluff. Do it.

And you're right... it IS about what is the most rational and scientific view. But I don't think the words mean what you think they mean.

It seems very clear (scientifically) that the universe is not eternal, yet started out in a singularity 10 to 14 Billion years ago.

Nope. It is NOT clear that is the case. What is clear is that up until recently that was our best 'guess'... as we gather more information, the models change.

Theories about bubble universes just don't seem to get past the smell test and could not be considered serious or even scientific at this point.

'the smell test'? Is this your idea of 'rational and scientific'? Is this an accepted test that I was never taught in school? If you could reference the test procedures I'd appreciate it.

Science has measured the approximate energy of the universe, the size, the matter and the age. All theories that had to do with the bouncing universe or the eternal universe have been rejected by the vast majority of scientist. Members of the faithful naturalists continue to speculate about these things but they are mere conjecture and "religious" with no scientific basis whatsoever. The evidence for a beginning is out to 22 decimal places of significance.

'religious' usually means dogma. I doubt you'd find ANY scientist who is dogmatic about anything to do with the beginning of the universe. YOu're pulling stuff out of thin air again.

Logically the idea of an eternal universe also fails. If the universe were eternally old, we would not be at this date yet... As it would have taken an eternity to get here and that is logically impossible.

Sigh... now we're playing the infinity word games again. FACT: we are here. That's the premise you START with. IF you want to play this game then you NEED to do something first... DEFINE what you mean when you use the word 'infinite'.... you ALSO need to do something else. You need to DEFINE exactly what you mean when you use the word TIME. Newsflash? Time is NOT an invariant. You brought these terms into the discussion. So, you have to define them. Once you've defined them, then you can start analyzing them. I'll wait.

Fact? We do not currently know how the universe began. We have theories, ideas, speculations. We're okay with that. It's YOU who has a need for a definitive answer and to achieve that certainty you invent this invisible God - all powerful, all knowing etc. etc. You do this based on nothing more than the idea that 'there must be an answer to all this'.. I have no need of this crutch so I'm not compelled to create it in my mind. You do. Such is life.

Now, with the fine tuning being evident, it forces the question, what is more rational in answering the question at hand? i.e., is there a God? When you add in morals, order, personhood, love, freedom, beauty and meaning... It seems like an easy logical answer to me.

I agree. For you... it is indeed your most 'logical' answer - because the other answer - we don't know and we might never know - scares the poop out of you.

You can grip firmly the metaphysical naturalism with a blind faith, hope and the love of darkness, or you can yield to the evidence revealed in science. Your call....

No blind faith - I just accept that in the face of some questions - I am blind.

Hope? Nope. Hope is what you need when you believe things are out of your control - I believe that I control the world and in those situations where I don't? I accept things for what they are.

'Love of Darkness' -- Ever heard of a lamp? We made that to push back the darkness. And... you know what? It works. Brilliantly! Pun intended.

Tony... all you have to do to convince me that there is something behind the curtain is SHOW IT TO ME. If you can't? Then I don't believe it exists. More to the point? Unlike you, I don't need it to exist.

[spongebob]

Tony, this is just the antrhopic principal argument. And some of those things you mentioned really are irrelevant, but most of them just are. For you to show that they have been tampered with supernaturally, you have to demonstrate that they could have been something different.

At least you understand that your own Metaphysical Naturalism is also a "naturalism of the gaps" so we are one step in the right direction. The thing is, you refuse to look at the evidence rationally or scientifically. The question at hand is, is there a God?; or did everything just happen for no reason without purpose or design by chance? You start out with a worldview commitment that rejects the possibility of God from the starting gate.

This is a laugh, Tony. First of all, every scientist knows we work with a concept of natural gaps. The gaps are where we put our energies to learn. Seems that would have been obvious. But until those gaps are answered, we scientists just leave them blank, whereas you Christians fill them with magic.

The question of god's existence is not one for science, so don't presume to think that's what we're doing in science. And scientists do not start out with a world view the rejects the possibility of god. Perhaps you would like to explain the many prominent scientists who are theists of many different kinds? Some of us do reject it, but not a priori, as you suggest. How could it be a priori if we spent years in coming to such a conclusion?

Is it logically possible that the universe was eternally existent and there are an eternal number of universes? Maybe? That is debatable on several levels which we will not get into here, (it is actually logically falsifiable). But what is the most rational and scientific view? That is the question.

Why not? You seem to know everything else. Why not educate us on everything else we don't know? Again, I'm not expecting science to give me the answer to the existence of god. If you are, I pitty you.

It seems very clear (scientifically) that the universe is not eternal, yet started out in a singularity 10 to 14 Billion years ago. Theories about bubble universes just don't seem to get past the smell test and could not be considered serious or even scientific at this point. Science has measured the approximate energy of the universe, the size, the matter and the age. All theories that had to do with the bouncing universe or the eternal universe have been rejected by the vast majority of scientist. Members of the faithful naturalists continue to speculate about these things but they are mere conjecture and "religious" with no scientific basis whatsoever.

At least you admit something in science is true. And yes, there are many speculative ideas about dimensions and bubbles, but don't thumb your nose at them so readily. How do you think Relativity was originally thunk up? Almost every scientific idea sounds fanciful in its beginning.

Logically the idea of an eternal universe also fails. If the universe were eternally old, we would not be at this date yet... As it would have taken an eternity to get here and that is logically impossible. Now, with the fine tuning being evident, it forces the question, what is more rational in answering the question at hand? i.e., is there a God? When you add in morals, order, personhood, love, freedom, beauty and meaning... It seems like an easy logical answer to me.

Your morals, personhood, freedome, beauty and meaning are all irrelevant to me, as they all have plentiful natural explanations and are not remotely unique. None of those factor into the question of god's existence for me. So, your argument has no weight. And I don't see any logic in your eternal universe assessment, just nonsense.

You can grip firmly the metaphysical naturalism with a blind faith, hope and the love of darkness, or you can yield to the evidence revealed in science. Your call....

Tony, you seem to have painted yourself into a corner. You have talked yourself into a finite universe that was "created" billions of years ago. But you also have rejected evolution as false even though the science working within both of them are intricately connected.. This, for me, is a grand contradiction. You believe in the jesus god who created men uniquely, yet you believe the universe is billions of years old. It sounds to me like you are merely cherry picking the science you like and rejecting that you don't like. This is not how science generally works. You have to follow the evidence and take what it gives you. For instance, all of those "fine tuning" examples do suggest that maybe the universe was designed, but how do you test that notion? If you can't test it, you can't know with any certainty that what you've asked is true or not. So, you are doing exactly what you keep accusing science of doing, extrapolating! You are assuming you are correct and leaping (through faith) to the answer. At least in science, we hold off answering the question until we have some data. You are welcome to your faith; I'll abstain.