OKay, sport, you ASKED for it.
YOU said
“You’re saying the multiple universe idea is not falsifiable empirically—in an a posteriori fashion—therefore we cannot really discuss it in a meaningful way. But the empirical is not all inclusive.”
I never SAID that or anything like it. You seem to have invented it out of whole cloth. But, that’s okay, I saw you palm that card. What I DID say was that
“The ‘Multi-verse’ thus attempts to describe a condition that is, by it’s own definition, unknowable, unmeasurable, intangible and beyond the scope of any conceivable method of observation or demonstration. Therefore, we CANNOT test any feature of existence accessible to us to determine whether or not this class of conjectures ‘means’ anything. We cannot use it to make any predictions; we cannot test these non-existent predictions in an attempt to ‘falsify’ them; we cannot ‘do’ or ‘conclude’ ANYTHING meaningful about this conjecture.”
a priori, you cannot presume to know, without ANY observation, that ANY Universe exists outside of the one in which we are now present and having this lovely conversation. If you can’t observe ANY Universe outside of our own, a posteriori, you cannot demonstrate ANYTHING meaningful about it. THAT is what I said.
You go on to state —
“I’m saying the idea is falsifiable logically—that is, in an a priori sense. This sort of context is epistemologically valid, thus meaningful. Logic is the greater scope—logic encompasses empiricism. Not the other way around.”
You don’t seem to grasp what is meant by ‘falsifiable’ within the context of the so-call Scientific Method. It doesn’t mean I can simply ‘deny’ something. A sound theory makes specific predictions. If ANY of them turn out to be ‘false’ / ‘inaccurate’, the theory is deemed to have ‘failed’. It is the process of demonstrating the ‘truth’ of those specific predictions that constitutes ‘falsification’. There is NO ‘logical argument’ that substitutes for demonstrating unambiguously and repeatably that a given prediction holds up.
It is NOT ‘epistemologically valid’ to attempt to argue the merits of a theory WITHOUT demonstrating unambiguously and repeatably whether any or all of it’s predictions hold up. This is NOT ‘empiricism’. This is the nature and definition of the Scientific Method.
You go on to state
“But the empirical is not all inclusive ... Logic is the greater scope — logic encompasses empiricism. Not the other way around.”
This is one statement I have no problem labeling Gobbledy-gook. Semantically, I can’t quite decipher what you think you’re saying. ‘Logic’ ( a method of constructing meaningful arguments ) is ‘the greater scope’ because it ‘encompasses empiricism’ ( the argument that all knowledge is derived from the evidence of our senses or our experiences ) ??? Apples and oranges ...
You then come in for a landing with
“But the fact that the universe had a beginning makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to deny that it had a cause. This leads to the likelihood of intelligent design, an idea which is a major source of fear for secular scientists whose identities and sense of pride has been founded on the belief in a Godless, randomly based universe.”
In engineering ( my field of expertise ) we work hard to distinguish between ‘cause’ and ‘correlation’. Just because ‘a’ precedes ‘b’ does not ‘prove’ that ‘a’ CAUSED ‘b’. There well may BE some element of ‘design’ in the way the Universe is constructed and behaves, but I don’t concede that your point of view or favored explanation has any more validity than anyone else’s. And I have a lot more confidence in MY epistomological methods than I can imagine having in your gobbledy-gook arguments.
Now, in view of
“The post you call “gobbledy-gook” is clear, straightforward and logical.
You are unable to show which part deserves your name-calling, because none does.”
I am content to think you published ‘gobbledy-gook’; that it was NOT ‘clear, straightforward and logical’; and that I have demonstrated a valid basis for that contentment.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
Yes, in fact your claim is that the multiple universe idea is not falsifiable empirically: “unmeasurable, intangible beyond the scope of observation or demonstration...cannot test these predictions.”
This precisely describes the definition of the empirical process—observation, measurement, prediction, demonstration.
Science is dependent on logic (language)—in the absense of logic, science can do as much as—or more probably, far less than—a ship on dry land.
Logic, on the other hand, is independent of empiricism and completely viable without it.
When I said “This leads to the likelihood of intelligent design,” I was not asserting or arguing for the likelihood of intelligent design. Rather, I was explaining that such a likelihood is necessarily a logical possibility once the reality of Big Bang was established through observation in 1965.
Again—the fact that intelligent design is a logical possibility is very intimidating to atheist scientists. But ironically, this is an example of being intimidated by the very thing by which they presume the existence of their own ultimate identity and credibility—the discovery of truth.