Current science; fraudulent thinking (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, May 17, 2015, 12:19 (3478 days ago) @ David Turell

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.
DAVID: I felt it had been discussed enough for a tiny point.-The point was so tiny that you emphasized it in bold. There has been no discussion. I pointed out that the items you put in bold substituted one circular fallacy for another. May I assume you agree?-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? 
DAVID: 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?-We have no idea. The meaning of the word dissolves when we start discussing the origin of the universe. That is why some folk describe the antecedent energy as “supernatural”, whereas materialists tell us there is nothing beyond the natural world. Even the word “universe” becomes fluid. Maybe the universe has existed for ever and ever, and the Big Bang (if it happened) was just one event in its history. Nobody knows what happened before (= time), or if/where the universe ends (= space). Hence the statement below, which perhaps you misunderstood.
 
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, 
DAVID: fine.
dhw: and did not consist of energy and matter.
DAVID: Really, is there anything more basic than energy particles? Yes, hot plasma. I don't follow you.-You have split my sentence. I see no reason to believe that space, time, energy and matter did not exist before the Big Bang.-dhw: There are no odds for or against agnosticism, because agnostics don't bet. They remain neutral. Only theists and atheists bet.
DAVID: True, but they should look at odds for each theory.-I do. And because I see them as 50/50, I do not bet. The odds can be for or against theism or atheism. They cannot be for or against agnosticism.