Thanks for the link. I've had a bit of a look. Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist or cosmologist and can't deeply understand the arguments. I thought that the endlessly expanding or contracting universe were both theories undecided as yet. Although even if it dies in a heat death, that does not necessarily mean a new one will be born.

I note however that apparently the steady state universe is somehow considered more compatible with atheism. I see no connection. On the other hand, even if our universe will be a finite event, that in no way precludes God from making new ones each time, so I find the Christian attempt in this article to make only Christianity The One True Religion a bit silly.

To me, matter itself is a proof of God, in fact the existence of anything at all is a proof of God.

Even if an oscillating universe cannot be scientifically defended, we cannot know that natural causes did not lead to the big bang, and I don't consider the big bang as a sufficient proof of God.

Leaving aside the possibility that the big bang theory will not stand the test of time after all, it still doesn't mean that it was some sort of absolute beginning. What if the bang and collapse is part of some recurrent cycle?

Onething. First of all, while new ideas and hypothesis should always be tested, to be true to science we rely on what evidence we have, not some hope or faith that what could come to past in the future. Also, your suggestion of an oscillating universe does note bode well with the facts. Hugh Ross provides the following summary of that model:

1.The maximum radius of the universe would increase from cycle to cycle because of irreversible thermodynamic changes. Therefore, a backwards look would show in finite time a decreasing radius down to a point.

2. The universe's observed density is at most only half of what is needed to force a collapse.

3. All inflationary models of the universe imply mass densities too small to force a collapse

4. Reasonable inflationary models of the universe do not allow for subsequent deflation.

5. No known physical mechanism can consistently reverse cosmic contractions.

6. Isotropic compression becomes violently unstable near the end of the collapse phase.

7. Even if the universe were to collapse, more than a very few bounces would be impossible because of the huge entropy in the universe.

From here

But science has already determined that this universe, ie nature, had a beginning. Scientists refer to it as "the big-bang". What has a beginning requires a cause.

Leaving aside the possibility that the big bang theory will not stand the test of time after all, it still doesn't mean that it was some sort of absolute beginning. What if the bang and collapse is part of some recurrent cycle?

I said that natural causes could not account for the origins of nature.

sanjait:
An alternative theory is that nature has always existed. Do you really have any evidence to support either theory?

But science has already determined that this universe, ie nature, had a beginning. Scientists refer to it as "the big-bang". What has a beginning requires a cause.

What does today's science tell us about the origins of the laws that govern this physical world? Not a real question, but I am starting to realize that I have never ever heard anyone explain how such a seemingly finely-tuned for life universe can come about without a plan/ design.

JoeG: The idea that nature must have been created by a supernatural being is not a fact, it is an assumption. An alternative theory is that nature has always existed. Do you really have any evidence to support either theory? Scientists don't, and that is why you won't see them claim either one with any certainty in a scientific context. To do so is to venture into the realm of faith or speculation.
Regarding the question of whether "intelligence" and "design" are natural, I'm not sure how to answer that. They certainly have components that exist in the natural world, and that we can characterize, test and even alter, but we are very far from a solid theory of consciousness. So I suppose the answer modern science should give to that question would be, "inconclusive, but we will keep looking…"

Orion: I think you are asking a similar question as Mike's in a more direct way. If science comes upon a mystery where we cannot find a natural explanation, we leave it unexplained. If it is truly a magical event, someone will still try to explain it naturally, but inevitably we will find evidence to refute it. In this way we rule out that specific natural cause, and any other one we can prove false.
But, generally speaking, we don't know what we will discover in the future, so we cannot positively say that we will never be able to find any natural cause. Only if we could see the future could we do that, which is what I meant by the requirement for omniscience to actually rule out natural causes in general.

To answer Mike's question: If we found that there was a great flood and the earth was 6000 years old and species didn't evolve, and if in this hypothetical universe there wasn't any other natural explanation of these events, then methodological naturalism would remain inconclusive in perpetuity. As I stated before many times, MN is clear on how we "must" proceed in this situation, if we are to stay in accordance with MN.
However, I suppose if the YECs or other religions were able to predict these findings of MN well in advance, many scientists might abandon MN altogether. I can't make a solid prediction, because there are more ambiguous variables to consider in your hypothetical situation. Does YEC posit other events which do not or did not actually occur according to the other findings of MN? Do other apparently magical things happen in this universe? Do other cultures have similar but slightly different theories about the Creation that also conform to MN? You also have to consider the fact that if apparently "supernatural" things happen in a testable and describable way, they are eventually incorporated into our understanding of the natural world. There have been many discoveries that would seem magical to humans from a different age, but we have now characterized using MNist methods. Do you think we could ever do that with God? lol

In such a world, we would attempt to find natural causes, and if we were doing our jobs right, we would ultimately fail to come up with one that survived the rigor of scientific testing for very long.

As I understand it what you are saying is that in principle there could be events for which MN can not justify a naturalistic explanation. Of course this nice neat situation is merely a thought experiment.

In answering JoeG you state that:

there is no case where we can positively say "that natural causes are not justified as an explanation." This requires an omniscience that mortals do not possess.

If omniscience isn't the critical factor in ruling out naturalistic explanations in the thought experiment why would it be so in the real world?

No amount of research is going to change that fact.

So is it still "scientific" to keep looking? If natural causes are determined in a death, do we still call in the homicide detectives?

Is intelligence natural? Is design natural?

Ok MG: I'll explain it for the last time, then I promise to leave this thread alone. We answered your question, but with more than a simple yes or no answer. It's clear you are choosing to see this as confusion and evasiveness, when it was just that a simple "yes" or "no" did not transmit enough information to sufficiently address the question. Still, the answers were pretty clear (especially mine of course). The "Yes, with a caveat" was qualitatively the same as Ed's "no".

You really ought not speak for "we" since it's not clear you are the spokesperson for any group. This is especially true when you've been forced to come up with a way to explain how Ed's "˜No' was really a "Yes."

I believe that you are not really incapable of comprehending this, but instead are choosing to ignore it to try and score cheap sophist's points. It's your board, but I won't sit there and watch it without pointing it out.

To point out something is to assume you are observing objective reality. What you are doing is expression your opinion as a function of the impressions you have.

"Yes" we try to find natural causes, but "no" we mustn't explain phenomena using natural causes if the evidence doesn't justify it.

I understand this position, but it looks like a way to evade the question. If I plug it into the question, you are saying that yes, MN means that we must explain a 6000 year old Earth with a history of a global flood and evidence that renders evolution impossible in natural terms, but no, we mustn't explain all of this using natural causes if the evidence doesn't justify it.

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, would you say that YEC was strongly supported?