The Cosmological Argument (A Documentary)

[philackey]

atheist fool says whether universe was started with the big bang or not. OR NOT. What do you mean OR NOT. Atheist just rejected the unified theory that is the peer reviewed explanation of the origin of the universe. Atheism embraces science until it becomes inconvienient then they reject it. Atheism is negative argument that cannot by definition ever be proven.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@philackey No, atheism is the default position of skepticism to the unevidenced positive claims of theism.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Atheism is not the default position at all. The standard definition of atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God (it actually asserts God doesn't exist). The other common definition is a disbelief in God. But the dictionary defines "disbelief" as a POSITIVE rejection of something. So tell me ... If I said "There are no diamonds on Mars", do I need to present some kind of evidence for that assertion? If so (which I'd say is pretty obvious), then so does atheism.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No, atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or deities and it is the default position. No, disbelief is defined as mental rejection of something as true, this is not the same as positing the antithesis. Given the lack of evidence, I disbelieve in the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. If I said I do not accept the claim that there are diamonds on Mars until positive evidence is given for the claim that there are then I would not bear any burden of proof.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Where's the standard dictionary that defines atheism as a "lack of belief"?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost merriam-webster(.)com/dictiona­ry/atheism

"a disbelief in the existence of deity" This means rejecting the, thus far, unevidenced positive claim of the existence of a deity.

There's a reason they have two separate entries, that one and this one;

"the doctrine that there is no deity"

Because they're different things.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Webster

"a disbelief in the existence of deity" This means rejecting the, thus far, unevidenced positive claim of the existence of a deity.

There's a reason they have two separate entries, that one and this one; "the doctrine that there is no deity"

Because they're different things.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Now go look up the definition of "disbelief".

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Already pointed it out, it means rejection of a position. A rejection is not a positive claim.

I reject that bigfoot exists, pending evidence.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation There's a difference between lacking a belief in bigfoot and rejecting bigfoot. You're equivocating the two. If you simply lacked a belief in bigfoot, then you can't positively reject it. To reject it would be to assert it doesn't exist.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Wrong, reject: to refuse to accept

If I reject a positive claim, this is the same as non-acceptance, in this case of an unsupported positive claim which does not require evidence and is the default position.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation You're simply wrong. The mere fact that you don't believe in something does not mean you reject it. For example, I don't believe in aliens, but I don't have to reject it.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost I haven't been wrong thus far, the definition of reject is to refuse to accept.

reject: refuse to accept

refuse: to express oneself as unwilling to accept

Webster

If you don't believe in aliens, you're, as of now, unwilling to accept their existence. You reject their existence.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation "If I said I do not accept the claim that there are diamonds on Mars until positive evidence is given for the claim that there are then I would not bear any burden of proof"

I agree. But thats not what atheism does. Atheism would be analogous to saying "There ARE NOT any diamonds on Mars". Thats the sort of claim that requires evidence.

There's a difference between "lacking a belief" in something and "disbelieving" something.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No, it's specifically the non-acceptance of a positive claim due to the utter lack of positive evidence.

There's no real difference between lacking belief and disbelieving. If disbelieving meant the positive claim of non-existence there would be no need for the secondary definition of 'the doctrine that there is no deity'

You, arguing for a secondary definition of universe, should realize this.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation I agree there are two definitions of atheism. The first is a postive claim and the second is a postive rejection of a claim. See the difference? And they BOTH require evidence. The positive rejection (which is what "disbelief" means) of ANYTHING would require evidence.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Again there are two because they're separate and distinct, one means the non-acceptance of a positive claim, the other is a positive claim itself, only the latter necessitates evidence. To reject means to not accept.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation The fact that you don't accept something does not necessarily entail that you *reject* it. "Disbelief" does not mean simply not accepting something. It means to outright REJECT a claim.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost That's exactly what it entails, the very definition of reject is to refuse to accept, and I refuse to accept unevidenced claims of deities.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Btw, if you want to use "universe" in the most common definition, then I'm going to use "atheism" in the most common definition (which is the belief that there is no God). Hence, you now have a burden of proof.

That was fun ;)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Actually the most common definition of atheism, as listed in websters, is disbelief in the existence of deities.

The burden never lies with the one skeptical of the unsupported positive claim, 'god exists' is an unsupported positive claim.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation You realize nobody defines atheism the way you're doing now, right? Even the majority of nontheists don't define it that way or else they would self identify as atheists when they don't. Less than 2% of Americans self identify as "atheist". What about the rest of nontheists? Didn't they get your memo?

Last time I checked ... Words are defined by their common usage. Not by a sect of YouTube atheists.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost The way I'm defining atheism right now is the first entry in Websters. If you want to go more base than that, the prefix 'a' means without and theist means 'belief in the existence of a god or gods'.

You can't get a positive claim from 'without'

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Ya ... and "auto" combine with "mobile" means something that moves by itself. So by your own logic, cats are automobiles.

There's more to defining a word than that.

It doesn't matter what *you* thing the dictionary definition of atheism means. What matters is what the MAJORITY thinks it means. You lose.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Horrible analogy, the etymology of automobile is 'a vehicle that moves itself' the etymology of atheist comes from atheos which means exactly what I said before.

If it's majority rule, then I still win because disbelief still means to refusal to accept.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation It is majority rule (when it comes to defining words) and the majority of even nontheists reject your definition of the word. If they accepted it, then all nontheists would identify as atheist when they don't.

Game over.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Apparently they very much accept my (the) definition, it's the first entry of the word in one of the most popular English dictionaries The game has been over for a while, I've just been making an example of you. It was over around the third time you failed to understand that not accepting is the very definition of rejecting.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation You don't get it. They don't accept how *YOU* are interpreting the first entry of the word. Thats why the MAJORITY of nontheists don't self identify as "atheist". Majority rules when it comes to defining words. Its really that simple. The only ppl who define it the way you are is atheists themselves.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Apparently I'm the only one that does get it. The very definition still used means the disbelief in the existence of deities, and disbelief still means the rejection of, the same as it did the last five times I've pointed it out. The ones who define it the way I define it are people who actually understand what words mean.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation LMAO ... So a sect of YouTube atheists is going to tell the rest of the world (including nontheists) what the dictionary means when it defines atheism?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No, the dictionary is telling you what it means, the disbelief in deities, which still isn't a positive claim.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation No, nobody agees what how you're *interpreting* what the dictionary is saying. That is, nobody outside of this little atheist clubhouse you've got going on with YouTube.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost You're in pretty egregious denial here. The definition I'm using is straight from the dictionary. Atheism means disbelief in the existence of deities, disbelief means the refusal to accept. Nowhere in there is a positive claim.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Keep equivocating between "lacking a belief" in something and actually rejecting something (which is to affirm the denial of a claim). Unfortunately for you, the real world (which includes the majority of nontheists themselves) doesn't accept *YOUR* pathetic *interpretation* of the word.

Good night sir.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No equivocation required, that's the very definition which you seem to be willfully ignorant of.  The only thing pathetic here is your feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof by trying to make word salad out of already established definitions.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Btw, even many atheists THEMSELVES admit that atheism is not and never was any "lack of belief". That alone ought to tell you something. Why would they give up the opportunity for making theists have the sole burden of proof Because they recognize that nobody actually defines atheism that way outside of atheists. You're in your own little bubble world.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost No we don't, the burden *does* rest on theists because you are indeed the ones making a positive claim. If you're claiming god exists, that's a positive assertion necessitating positive evidence, if you're not claiming god exists then there is no point of contention.

Your projection is rather pitiful. Nowhere else in epistemology would 'I bare assert that X exists, prove me wrong' be considered a rational thought.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation "X exists, prove me wrong"

Nice strawman sir.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost How so? Are you saying that you aren't claiming something exists? Or that you aren't expecting someone else to prove it doesn't exist?  Because if you're not doing both of those in conjunction then all of your postings have been facetious along with already known to be ignorant.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Its not about you having to prove X doesn't exist. Its about *YOU* shifting a burden of proof. I don't deny theists have a burden of proof, but so do atheists. Anyone who actually denies something exists (to reject something is the exact same thing as to deny it) has a burden of proof. So you can't accuse me of shifting any burden of proof. You're the one claiming you have none. Thankfully, nobody agrees with your definition of the word outside of YouTube atheist wackjobs.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost The atheists have no burden of proof, we're the ones skeptical of your positive claim of the existence of a deity. Anyone with a working knowledge of the English language and an understanding of epistemology grasps that skepticism is the default position towards any positive claim.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost If you do think skeptics bear any burden at all, I'm still waiting on you to disprove my incorporeal dragon.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation I'm not an atheist with regard to your baby dragon. Do I believe in it? No. I have no reason to unless you provide some evidence.

Btw, it was Thomas Huxley who coined the word agnostic FOR THE VERY PURPOSE OF differentiating between one who believes there is no God (atheist) and one who does not know if there is a God (agnostic). If atheism *entailed* agnosticism, there would be no reason to invent the word agnostic in the first place.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Not believing my dragon exists makes you an atheist/adragonist as disbelief is still defined as refusal to accept this time as it was the last 8 times I've had to define it for you.

Agnosticism goes to potential knowledge or lack thereof, atheism goes to lack of belief.

We can't know if there are leprechauns that follow us around which turn invisible every time someone tries to look at them, that doesn't mean we believe in them just in case.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Yea ... 8 times repeating the same bullshit mantra. Apparently, not only is a sect of YouTube atheists going to tell the rest of the world (including the majority of nontheists) what the dictionary means regarding atheism, they are also going to tell us that it even entails agnosticism (which goes contrary to the very purpose for which Huxley coined the term!). Beautiful.

Are you done yet? Or would you like to repeat your mantra another 8 times?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Eight times of explaining a very basic concept in the very dictionary you cited earlier when it suited you. We don't have to tell anyone anything, the definition I'm using is the definition used in the dictionary.

I'll keep correcting you and explaining it to you as long as you keep missing the point.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation No. Automobile *means* a vehicle that moves but "auto" means "self" while "moblie" means "move". So if you're going to break down atheism to mean "whithout God", then automobile means anything that moves.

Auto = self

Mobile=to move

Cats are automobiles too, right? According to how you just broke down atheism, they are.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost I was going by the etymology of the word, which was rooted in atheos, which means without god so your analogy still fails horrifically.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost I can claim that I have a dragon in my garage. Do you believe by default that a dragon lives in my garage? Given that you've used a definition of universe that puts god necessarily outside of perceivable reality, I could say that my dragon is invisible and intangible.

Would you believe my dragon exists then?

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation We can go into your garage and see if you have a nice little dragon. Dragons aren't "invisible". If you could actually present evidence for this unseen dragon, then I would have to believe. Sure. People present evidence for unseen realities all the time.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost *My* dragon is invisible and incorporeal. So, before I presented evidence, would you believe my dragon exists? If not, why not?

Something currently unseen, yes. Something by definition beyond perception, no.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Before you provided evidence? Of course not. I would not believe you but I would have no justification for positively rejecting your claim.

Btw, if your dragon is incorporeal, then how can it be said to be a "dragon"?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost not believing the claim *is* rejecting it.

Dragons are mythical creatures, they can take whatever form, or lack therefore, they wish.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Dragons are mythical creatures but they are never said to be immaterial. Why? Because dragons by definition are material creatures. A dragon has feet, eyes, a body etc. So if you claim there's a baby dragon in your garage, then all we have to do is look in your garage. If you say its immaterial, then its not a "dragon" anymore.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost It doesn't matter if they were never said to be immaterial. The popular opinion on the morphology of a creature, real or mythical, does not constitute fact.

[whiteliketar]

It makes perfect sense that God sits outside the realm of human understanding - even if you have more degrees than a thermometer - you are still a cross-eyed idiot when you try to explain God or explain hiim away. we spin full circle back to faith which it seems is what God treasures in his reationship with us.

[hobaleo]

quentin smith!! <3

[XerxesTheory]

@PhilosophiaTheos How has he been owned? Its a discussion.

[Craigmin]

Crazy Quentin.

[PhilosophiaTheos]

TheDutchPhilosopher--you have been owned.

[the3dguy2]

first cause need not mean temporally first..it could also mean hierarchially first, meaning fundamental...

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

"For now this is the closest you'll get to truth"

How do you know? it seems that the Bertrand Russell "Brute Fact Dismissal" is simply the taxicab fallacy. which was discussed in the video...

[TheScienceFoundation]

Cosmological arguments hit a fork of fallacy in the regression.

Empirical physics would express that energy has existed indefinitely, meaning no first cause, thus trying to inject god is special pleading

But if you try to dismiss observational physics up to the point you want to apply causality, that's taxicabbing fallacy.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation Then It faces the same problem that Quentin Smith argued (an infinite chain of causes)

if the universe causes things now, it is impossible that there have been an actual infinite amount of causes prior to now. Because before the universe causes things now, there can ways be one more cause before this one. thus we would never reach this cause, or the formation of the earth or any other cause in history.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher If energy itself as existed indefinitely then the universe is uncaused. There is no 'before the universe' as the universe is defined as all that exists, both real and postulated.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation "If energy itself as existed indefinitely" as=has i presume, it would still face the same problem of an infinite regress, i.e. if energy were to act upon anything which it does, we have good grounds to think there hasnt been an actually infinite amount of actions before now.

you define the universe such, but that's not a scientific definition of universe, what you call universe is simply reality. the way things are independent of human opinion or knowledge.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher There is no infinite regress because there is no beginning. 'we have good grounds to think there hasnt been an actually infinite amount of actions before now.'

Such as?

That's the definition of universe in Merrian-Webster, CALD, etc.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation "There is no infinite regress because there is no beginning. " thats irrelevant to the problem, its not required to have a beginning, its relevant if you say "now an infinite time as passed" which is what is implied when you say "the universe existed indefinitely"

"Such as?" please read the whole sentence you quote me from a comma!

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Time is a property of matter/energy. Saying 'infinite time can't have passed because the universe hasn't existed indefinitely' is circular logic. The universe not existing indefinitely is what cosmological arguments are trying to demonstrate in the first place.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation well as far as time is at its most basic description "change". But the argument (of an infinite regress) does not only apply to time, but to any type of material cause or change. as long as you say now "the universe has existed indefinitely" you are also by your own description saying that now "the universe has gone through an infinite amount of energy cycles"

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Any material cause or change would constitute time.

'you are also by your own description saying that now "the universe has gone through an infinite amount of energy cycles"'

Cyclicity is the most sensible model given the data.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation yes, that's my point. that's why i attributed it to you by saying "'you are also by your own description saying that now "the universe has gone through an infinite amount of energy cycles"'

but you dont avoid the problem of an infinite regress.

infinite change = infinity (objection) infinities cannot be crossed = we cannot be here.

yet we are here = infinite change has not occurred = there is a beginning.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Not by just my description, by all available data.

To say that we couldn't be here if energy existed indefinitely is to say that energy can't change, transform into matter etc. if it's been continually doing so. It makes no sense. The future is indefinite as per the inability to destroy energy in an isolated system, this does not mean that 100by in the future won't exist.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation I understand that to your knowledge its "by all the available data" I disagree with that as well, but rather than going in to that, which is a whole other discussion, i'd like to stick to the point i was making.

I think you're also making faulty deductions from what i'm saying, i'm not arguing that if an infinite amount of time passed energy cant change form, i'm saying that and infinite does not exist, moreover it cannot exist.

cont.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher 'i'm saying that and infinite does not exist, moreover it cannot exist.'

That's certainly the claim you're making, but the fact that energy can't be destroyed conflicts with this notion.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation but you seem to imply that it does contrary to all known mathematics, which coincidentally is the same mathematics used in all models of the universe, cyclic or otherwise, which shows that infinities cannot exist.

Simply presupposing that it can, is as much going against science (which presupposes that math) which is, i assume, something you would not do, otherwise you would undermine your own case.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher There are no mathematics that show infinites cannot exist, just the opposite.  For the future not to extend indefinitely, existence would have to stop existing.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation

But, if you keep simply stating it, while it is well known that infinites in mathematics results in absurdities for example if you have an actual infinite, and you subtract all odd numbers, you actually remove an infinite amount of numbers, but you are also left with an infinite amount of even numbers. thus infinity - infinity = infinity. same when adding up.

this shows us that infinities are simply ideas in the mind, rather than based in reality.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation so to close:

1. either give a good reason to doubt that infinities cannot exist. which if the case i would concede and we can move on to the cyclic model.

2. agree with me that infinities cannot exist, and stop saying "the universe has existed indefinitely"

3. or we should stop here, because it seems you are unable to respond or provide any reason for me to agree with you.

Peace

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher

1: For infinite not to exist, reality in its entirety would have to cease to exist, contrary to all known physics.

3: You not agreeing with me isn't the same as me not being right.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation

1: again you presuppose that the science says history is finite, which is simply false, science cannot make predictions about history. it can only extrapolate backwards. thus we have to look at "is it possible for an infinte to exist" if it is, then your position would be reasonable to hold. if it is not possible then you position is false. I've given a good reason why infinites cannot exist, you, on the other hand, have not, you've only presupposed it can be thus.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheDutchPhilosopher correction infinite

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Again you confuse not understanding or wanting to accept my arguments for me not having given them. Energy exists and cannot be created, the only logical conclusion from those two premises is an infinite past.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation which is the same as saying, its so because i want it to be so.

3, that is only if you assume that i'm by definition against truth, which is clearly absurd and its not what you truly believe, if it were we would not be having this conversation, i presume. otherwise you would be completely wasting your time, which seems pointless.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher What I've been saying is the same as saying, All data indicates it and none contradicts it therefore it's likely so.

3: You seem to be against truth thus far. I have yet to hear a more logical ramification of something existing that can't be created or destroyed than it having existed indefinitely in the past and will exist indefinitely in the future.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation as a philosopher i'm especially interested in truth, but if you cant give me a reason to believe your right, (btw apriori assumptions like an infinite does exist, and neglecting my example concerning the irrationality of an actual infinite, is not a reason) all i can do is disagree. and hold to my own position.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Once more, rejecting my arguments out of hand, or not comprehending them is not a valid argument.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation So by that logic, if i don’t understand something i should accept it as true? Does that work visa versa?

i presume you are not convinced that God exists, "rejecting my arguments out of hand, or not comprehending them is not a valid argument." aka you must believe.

That’s obviously absurd! You hold something to be true or false based on what you know. If i want to change your mind i have to offer reasons, you didn’t do that. You simply assert that an infinite exists.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher No, by that logic, don't confuse you not understanding it for it being wrong.

I didn't just assert, I pointed out that energy exists and that it can't be created, the only logical conclusion being that it has existed indefinitely.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation ahh now finally you give a reason... that's all i was asking for.

But that's also mistaken, Laws are only descriptive of what usually happens in a closed system. which simply means that in the universe energy cannot be created or destroyed. but that says absolutely nothing about whether or not it cannot be created from an outside source. thus your argument for dismissal of a beginning is false.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher I've been explaining this fact for days now. The universe is defined as all of existence, if energy exists then the universe exists. Postulating an outside source is just ad hoc rationalization and burden shifting, on the part of the theist, basically saying 'You can't prove that energy *wasn't* created by a completely intangible undetectable and untestable entity'

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation in regards to the "universe" definition, if you're going to argue for a cosmological system, you might wanna stick to a cosmological definition of universe (i.e. search out what cosmologists mean with universe) by using a Dictionary you are refering to what the layman's use of the word is, not what it means in its scientific (in this case) definition.

Universe as such, is simply all of space time and matter. But that doesnt mean that universe is = to reality.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher You're just using a definition that suits your arguments, I'm using actual accepted definitions.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation lol, you didnt even reseach it. i can say the same thing. you're simply using descriptions that suit your definition.

I ACTUALLY USE SCIENTIFIC DEFINITIONS OF TERMS, RATHER THAN LAYMEN DEFINITIONS!

who's being intellectually lazy and disingenuous here?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher You can but then I'd point out how my definition is actually in pretty much every dictionary.

You used a definition that suits your argument.

'who's being intellectually lazy and disingenuous here?'

Still you.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation

here is your scientific definition:

science - dictionary. com / definition / universe . html

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Actually that's a personal website with a definition that happens to suit your need.

Here's the actual definition

merriam-webster(.)com/dictiona­ry/universe

dictionary.cambridge(.)org/dic­tionary/british/universe?q=uni­verse

Also, a nearly identical variation of Eriugena's definition is used in quantum physics

'everything that exists, has existed and will exist, as well as everything that does not exist, has never existed and will never exist.'

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Words can have more than one meaning. As long as one of the definitions of the word "universe" means the observable universe of time, space, matter and energy (rather than all "reality"), then theists are justified in using *that* definition of the word.

According to Oxford Dictionary online, universe means "all existing matter and space as a whole; the cosmos". In fact, even one of the definitions in Merriam Webster itself is "the entire celestial cosmos".

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost Even if you insist on using a less popular definition that would not encompass god, this simply makes god indistinguishable from non-existent presupposition.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation Of course it doesn't encompass God. Thats the whole point. The "universe" doesn't have to mean all reality, which you seemed to be arguing. If it only meant all reality, THEN "universe" would have to encompass God (or any other postulate). Plenty of definitions for universe simply define it as the observable natural world. Thats the defintion theists use when they make a distinction between the creator and the creation.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost The most common and relevant definitions define the universe along the lines of all of existence, both real and postulated.

It's a meaningless distinction because it's circular logic, you're assuming it's a creation to assert that there's a creator.

[CasperTheMeanieGhost]

@TheScienceFoundation It doesn't matter what the most common defintion is. I'm using a KNOWN definition of the word. Again, words have more than one meaning.

What are you talking about? I'm assuming a creation to assert a creator? Theist don't "assume" a creation to assert a creator. They ARGUE (as in present argumentation) for creation to conclude a creator.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@CasperTheMeanieGhost So am I, and by my definition god would be part of the universe. There's also the fact that the definition you're using could be a subset of the definition I'm using.

I can't tell you how many theists I've heard say something along the lines of "A painting means a painter, a creation means a creator" as if it were itself an argument.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation "Postulating an outside source is just ad hoc rationalization and burden shifting,"

thats just blatendly false, it is disputed whether or not the universe is a closed system, though my argument against infinities makes it more rational to accept it is not than that it is. Thus if you cant give a reason that the universe is a closed system, you're still doing that which i accused you of, ad hoc assumptions that the universe is indefinite.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher No, it's entirely true. You're just asserting something that amounts to magic might have created energy in an undetectable untestable way. It's meaningless.

'Thus if you cant give a reason that the universe is a closed system'

Nothing can exist outside of 'all of existence' That's a contradiction

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation so its seems we are stuck at what universe means. well i refer you to my earlier comment.

do you actually think that when i'm referring to the universe i'm using your definition... if i meant all of existence i would say all of existence. (i wonder have you taken ANY science class in your life) when someone talks about homo sapiens do you actually think they mean Gay sapiens?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher If's not my definition, it's the listed definition.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation what you're implying if you continue to stress you're point, then you are claiming (that i'm claiming) that the universe caused itself to come into being (which would be a valid point, though claiming something that does not exist causes itself to come into being is clearly absurd) but that's not what i'm claiming.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation The universe will eventually die because we will reach equilibrium, i.e. all usable energy will be gone, and the whole universe will be of uniform temperature. this is inevitable. this if the universe is a closed system.

secondly it is only an assumption that the universe is a closed system, but the Multiverse hypothesis requires it not to be, so do some cyclic models.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher The universe will reach a maximum entropy, there will be no more usable energy in a given subsystem than any other, but the energy will still exist and the system itself will be subject to collapse as there will still be gravitational attraction between mass.

Energy can still cross the boundary of a closed system, the universe is an isolated system.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation Now, i’ve responded to your assertion “that the universe exists indefinitely” by giving you a mathematical problem with actual infinites, which would have to be the case when you say (the above quote). In the face of that criticism your assertion is false. give me a reason to doubt my criticism is false.

We are going around in circles. If you don’t understand the point, then this will be my last comment.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher What mathematical problem? We're going in circles because you seem to fail to grasp the only logical ramification of something existing that can't be created or destroyed.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation And thus it seems that the philosophical underpinnings of this scientific explanation of empirical physics is faulty.

which is why, from my experience Logic which is one of the foundation of science should be taken into account before one argues anything on the basis of science.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@TheDutchPhilosopher Logic is a property of existence, it cannot be separate as if A doesn't exist then A could not be A.

[TheDutchPhilosopher]

@TheScienceFoundation that's not germane to my point.

[AletheiaTheist]

@TheScienceFoundation Energy without a mind would have no choice to do anything. Meaning if it caused the universe, it would be nessacery for the universe to exist and would have no choice. Like any non sentient thing. ''up to the point where you want to apply causality'' not really it needs to end somewhere, actual infinites are impossible and illogical. Seeing that the universe would require an explanation, you can't end it there.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@AletheiaTheist It doesn't need to end anywhere, thats where the special pleading comes in "The existence of everything requires a former cause, except my god" 

[AletheiaTheist]

@TheScienceFoundation it needs to end at something eternal. If not an actual infinite is true, what is impossible. Seeing that it can't end at the universe, it needs to end at something uncaused.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@AletheiaTheist You're presupposing that the universe is caused and not eternal

[AletheiaTheist]

@TheScienceFoundation Which it is. Your idea of an eternal big bang big crunch, means that the energy will never run out. If that is the case the 2nd law of thermaldynamics is false. Its like bouncing a ball, eventually the energy leaves the object. Also if there was no beginning to the infinite regression of big bang big crunch, what came frist the 1st big bang or 1st big crunch? Or a static universe that resulted into this?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@AletheiaTheist No it's not. Cyclicity does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, entropy describes what will happen to the energy in an isolated system, not the system itself.