Current science; fraudulent thinking (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, May 15, 2015, 23:44 (3479 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: 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.-I felt it had been discussed enough for a tiny point.
> 
> dhw: 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'm not sure what you mean by 'nature' in this context. Our universe 'in its nature' did have to come from antecedent energy, which is always my view. Isn't nature what appears after the universe starts?-> dhw: 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, -fine.-> dhw: and did not consist of energy and matter.-Really, is there anything more basic than energy particles? Yes, hot plasma. I don't follow you.
> 
> dhw: There are no odds for or against agnosticism, because agnostics don't bet. They remain neutral. Only theists and atheists bet.-True, but they should look at odds for each theory.