Er? And how exactly is that supposed to work?
This is not just incorrect, by wildly, hysterically incorrect. The burden of proof is on the one who says there IS evidence.
No, it doesn’t work this way. A presumption of non-existence is the logical default. You should take a scienc class sometime.
There is no difference. Atheism is a non-sequitur to empricism. The five senses don’t change according to theistic belief. One has nothing to do with the other.
No, “theistic worlds” do not have this property at all, since you are still completely reliant on your sense to get your information about your gods. Theism doesn’t make empiricism any more reliable, it just adds an unfounded and anti-empirical belief to the equation.
You’re the one trying to fling Cartesian doubt around as a tactic to shield yourself from empirical fact.
Dude, I was citing Descartes to mock you. You were using Cartesian doubt as an argument.
It’s also pretty clear that you don’t have much experience with or knowledge of scientific or philosophical debates.
Yes, and it’s not not true that a multiverse requires a finite past. Individual universes may or may not. A multiverse does not.
This is a tautology. The same thing can be said of a hypothetical multiverse, and may be said without recourse to baseless beliefs in fairy magic.
Perhaps its been around forever; some theories posit this. Or perhaps the answer is simply “we don’t know”; that’s a better answer than claiming some physics-violating Bronze Age fantasy character is responsible.
And yes, there are “observable phenomena and empirical data”; these theories are extrapolations based on the way that spacetime & quantum mechanics appears to work in our universe. Which, again, puts them on a higher level of scientific plausibility than claiming a god did it because there’s no evidence at all for even the possibility of gods.
What “confusion”? It’s obvious. You claimed that God was required to explain the universe existing at all, but that “God” doesn’t require an explanation. You are contradicting yourself; just looking for an excuse to shoehorn “God did it” in as an explanation then saying that at that point we should just turn our minds off.
Don’t be ridiculous;I say there’s no evidence because there isn’t any. Provide some. You are the one claiming he exists.
It says nothing meaningful, including that god is a singular “God”, much less that it or they is “uncreated” or “eternal”. There is no evidence that such a god or gods exists, or of its nature. You could say that the universe exists because of "xylmixum’ with just as much evidence and meaning; the only difference is that you don’t get to use the word “God” - which is the real point, of course.
What’s “God” made of? What makes you think there’s only one? What makes you think that “God” being uncaused is a quality of God at all, much less a fundamental one? That’s why “God” isn’t an explanation; you aren’t using it to explain anything, just in an attempt to shove in the word “God” and silence inquiry after.
Ridiculous. How do you know that your god did create us with any such ability, or that evolution didn’t? And again, there’s zero evidence that were came from anything other than evolution, and zero evidence that “gods” are even possible.
That’s just silly; atheism doesn’t require any such thing.
Nonsense. “Modernist naturalistic materialism” is the viewpoint that fits the facts; it is the rational position to take. It is the only position that HAS evidence for itself.
Particles pop in and out of the quantum field all the time.
No faith is involved. It’s just a hypothesis, not a belief. You apologists would do yourself a great service if you would ditch the constant and immature attempts to paint scientific methodology as religious. All it does it hurt your own credibility.
Incorrect. The multiverse does not have the same problem.
You are falsely trying to define thsi particular universe as the necessaryj sum total of all “physical reality.” This is not a fact in evidence.
By the way, evolution has nothing to do with either the beginning of the universe or the existence of gods. Just for the record. Both of those things are irrelevant to evolutionary theory and do not affect it.
Just to clarify: As far as I can see neither Diogenes, not Der Thris, nor me, are claiming there CAN’T be any evidence. We are just claiming we having seen any. If you have some compelling evidence, I think I can speak for all of us and say that we would be very impressed if you can provide some evidence (even if it’s not conclusive) that’s not based on personal experience or just refers to whatever was written in some book.
<<And yes, there are “observable phenomena and empirical data”; these theories are extrapolations based on the way that spacetime & quantum mechanics appears to work in our universe.>>
You would do well to reflect on your own uncertainty.
Anything that is based on the way something “appears” to work is at best uncertain. It is anything other than “observable phenomena and empirical data”
<<Particles pop in and out of the quantum field all the time.>>
But this doesn’t answer the primary challenge. These particles…are they somthing from nothing?
Yes.
Yes, they literally appear from nothing.
That depends on what you define as “nothing”. As far as we know, there’s no “cause” to these phenomena. And if there is, it’s pretty much impossible to assign any intent to them.
<<No faith is involved. It’s just a hypothesis, not a belief. You apologists would do yourself a great service if you would ditch the constant and immature attempts to paint scientific methodology as religious. All it does it hurt your own credibility>>
A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. The only observable phenomenon linked to the multiverse is the existence of this universe. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence for any other universe. The ad-homimen mirrors the desperation of those who propose it.
<<You are falsely trying to define thsi particular universe as the necessaryj sum total of all “physical reality.” This is not a fact in evidence. >>
No, you are redefining my point.
The sum total of all physical reality, whatever that is, either had a beginning or it did not.
Pick up a dictionary and please learn to quote on this board.
No, it requires extrapolation from observed phenomenon and better confirmed theories. In this case, our knowledge of the way the universe works implies the possibility of others, as does the simple existence of our own; we have proof that universes are at least possible, since we live in one. That puts multiverse hypotheses on a plane well above belief in gods, since we don’t have evidence for gods or related creatures, nor are the claimed characteristics of such things compatible with known physics.
That’s the only phenomenon required.
There is no evidence for the existence of sky gods either, but a muliverse hypoyhesis is more plausible as a hypothesis than a magic prancing fairy to explain the big bang.
I don’t think you know what ad hominem means. I attacked your argument, not you. You also don’t really seem to understand the refuation. Your attempt to insinuate that any scientific hypothesis is “faith-based,” or equivalent to a religious belief is factually erroneous. Hypotheses are not beliefs. The comparison breaks down right there, and the attempt to make that comparison at all is just deflection.
There is no reason to believe that it needed a beginning. Trying to claim that it did, and that it needed a magician to start the ball rolling only pushes the question back to what started the magician.
<<Yes, they literally appear from nothing. >>
Then you misunderstand the difference between ‘nothingness’ and the concept of a vaccum in physics.
A quantum state is not ‘nothing’. In fact it is an organised state.
A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon in order to be tested, but it doesn’t require one to simply be hypothesized. Obviously, making up a hypothesis that can never by tested is pointless, but it would still be a hypothesis.
That God exists is a hypothesis. That multiverses exist is a hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis, though, has the advantage that it doesn’t contradict what we know about reality. God quite often does. If there was some sort of intellect in creating the universe, for example, then there appears to be a massive amount of waste and the whole process from the Big Bang to now to have occurred entirely via random happenstance. There’s no evidence of a guiding hand. There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome. There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being. There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided. These facts contradict the God hypothesis. So while there may not be any more evidence for a or several deities than for multiverses, like I said, the multiverses have the advantage that they don’t go against what we can actually observe. From what we can observe, if there is a God, he hasn’t done anything that can be observed – which basically goes against everything that is hypothesized about him, unless you’re a Deist.