Current science; fraudulent thinking (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, May 15, 2015, 22:38 (3479 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I'm not at all convinced that “good science” reveals that Nature as he defines it had a beginning, but otherwise I agree completely with this. However, his own response to the fallacy as quoted in the paragraph at the head of this post is laughable. He has substituted one circular fallacy for another! If you assume the origin of nature is “natural”, it can't be supernatural (yah boo), and to avoid that mistake, you must assume that the origin of nature is not natural, and therefore it is supernatural, and therefore God exists (hurray).
Everything else, though, is fine with me, and provides a sound argument for agnosticism.-DAVID: Except the universe had a beginning. It had to start from something and its energy had to derive from antecedent energy. It follows laws of physics and its evolution to its current state looks planned. The odds against natural occurrence are miniscule. Odds for agnosticism small.-I notice you have ignored the silly circular fallacy, so I presume you agree that it is nonsense to promote one circular fallacy against another.-The author claims that “Good science reveals that nature, composed of space, time, matter and energy, had a beginning.” “Good science” already begs the question of criteria, but you yourself say the universe had to derive from antecedent energy, so is the antecedent energy not part of nature? I find it very difficult to make assumptions about what preceded our universe, but even if the Big Bang theory is correct (and it remains a theory, not a fact), I join with you in the belief that it must have had a cause. And I see no reason to assume that whatever caused it did not already exist in space and time, and did not consist of energy and matter.
 
There are no odds for or against agnosticism, because agnostics don't bet. They remain neutral. Only theists and atheists bet.