Deal me in

It never hurts to examine some of these authors when they're presented as if to have authoratative understanding of the subject. Found this on J. Warner Wallace....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Warner_Wallace

"James Warner Wallace (born June 16, 1961) is an American homicide detective and Christian apologist. Wallace is a Senior Fellow at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview and an Adjunct Professor of Apologetics at Talbot School of Theology (Biola University) in La Mirada, California. He has authored several books, including Person of Interest, Cold-Case Christianity, God's Crime Scene, and Forensic Faith, in which he applies principles of cold case homicide investigation to apologetic concerns such as the existence of God and the reliability of the Gospels. He has been featured as a cold case homicide expert on Fox 11 Los Angeles, truTV (formerly Court TV), and NBC"

Isn't he intoduced in that video as some kind of 'scientist'? Being a detective doesn't make a person a professional scientist.

When it comes to our incomplete understanding of this subject, it's very easy to focus on a small part of it that seems to reinforce our hypothesis of how the system is structured, while at the same time ignoring much of the rest that either contradicts or is inconsistent with it.

And I can't repeat too often that even if something akin to a fathomless 'mind' had to have been responsible for the Cosmos then that conclusion is a million miles away from any entity conceived of in human religion or culture.

"The Cosmos was deliberately created by an entity with immense power ...... therfore the 'god' described in my holy book is true"

Look up the meaning of the term 'non-sequitur'

I was wrong, it's Paul davies who's described as a Physicist and Scientist but who's he?

So someone whose life is evidence, you don't touch the presentation you do opposition research on the speaker. You can look at life's design and call it an illusion, nothing stops you from denying anything no matter how strong it is, if the evidence isn't what keeps you where you want to be. Long odds on chance, you realize all of the various odds each one of those has is just what they are, but all of them have to be right at the same time so the odds of that I don't think we can write that number out.

On this question the puzzle is in deciding what the vanishingly unlikely result (the Cosmos) is evidence of! Just because some event is apparently extremely (to the nth degree) improbable, doesn't of necessity mean that a thinking, creative will must be behind it.

And just as importantly, even if a 'thinking, creative will' is responsible for the Cosmos, we're not in a position to know anything about what that might be.

And btw - just because someone has expertise in examining blood-spatter and other aspects of crime scenes, it doesn't mean they have any expertise in the science of Cosmology!

I suppose a detective could be considered a forensic scientist. But that still places them well outside their area of expertise.

The thing is when you have evidence for say a crime of murder, those guys job is to find the person that can connect all of the dots. As he says in his book, if all the evidence can be explained in the room that the body is in, there is no reason to look out side the room no crime was done, but if we there is evidence that leads outside, then we have to go outside to explain it.

Nothing in the universe can explain the universe and everything in it, so time, mass, energy, consciousness, right and wrong, personhood, and information all came form something else. It’s an accommodative case not just a single piece of evidence.

Not really. The two disciplines are quite separate. I've never heard a detective try to describe themselves as a 'scientist'.

I can apply logic and make inferences based on the available evidence but this ability doesn't make me a scientist.

That doesn't necessitate a non-natural cause. Many things are unknown but that by itself doesn't justify reaching for fantastic explanations.

Please clear up a question for me, exactly what in your opinion is a natural cause? Is it what takes place in nature that we can see and study, or what is not supernatural? The first choice I believe is the only practical option, the second simply requires every possibility that runs counter to your worldview to be rejected out of hand.

I've heard a number of ideas from Cosmologists regarding the possible origin of our Universe and none of them required a 'mind'. It may be necessary to extend what we think of as natural to things such as hypothetical 'membranes', colliding to generate the conditions from which the Universe emerged.

Isn't it more sensible to work within the limits of what we believe to be the case to a high degree of confidence, without allowing our imagination to run too far ahead?

Okay, but that was not what I asked you. When you say natural, is that strictly what we see in nature, or are you saying nothing you'd consider that would be something other than what we see in nature? The first one I understand the 2nd is circular logic denying something out of hand without any chance of seriously looking at all of the answers it solves.

For 'natural', I think of anything that results from natural processes, which is to say anything that does not rely on some 'hidden hand' to occur.

The only way you can truly succeed in your purpose is to demonstrate that nothing in nature can possibly bring about the result we observe but our current state of knowledge does not permit that.

You are saying if it doesn't fit your worldview it isn't natural, very circular of you, you have by definition stopped yourself from being shown you could be wrong by definition before any evidence could show you anything. Are you looking at all the possibilities if it doesn't fit the way you think nature works, it must be ignored?

If you cannot show means, mechanisms, or processes that demonstrate the activities required to overcome entropy, the degrading over time, by some means we can see, test, and reproduce then what in the name of nature are you looking for? We know that a mind can strike the keys of a keyboard and type out complex messages, write instructions, and design the material world to behave the way we want. If the material world was it, then everything could be broken down into simple material answers, nothing else would be required. That we know is not the case, because, we can do things that transcend the material world by how we manipulate it, we can pass the information along by encoding it in a text to be decoded as it is read.

If it were just the material world alone how could that happen, there would only be the basic building blocks of matter, and that would be it. We know there is more than that., we can speak them to someone who understands through sounds we create to get our meaning across. If we know the material world has that going on in it just by what we do, and we are part of the material world, doesn't it stand to reason the creator of the material world would have these abilities too, in much greater capacities?

"evidence" of what exactly? The only evidence we have is that our Universe appears to be very highly improbable which tells us only that it's very highly improbable.

You may wish (or need) to draw vaulting conclusions based on that one thing but it's not safe to do so. Cosmologists wisely choose not to do so.

Not really, highly improbable is a grandiose understatement, when you see the number of things that "ALL" had to fall into place simultaneously at the origin of the universe, then just as improbable maintain that delicate balance from the on set. Making each instant where it is maintained a miracle of balance and precision, knowing what we know about entropy, why would that ever be the case when so many different forces in the universe are so delicately balanced and that each one affects to whole?

Denying conclusions that give answers or accepting them are no different from one another, the only thing that makes one better is if what is accepted is truth. What is reasonable can only be achieved if reasons are the cause of either accepting something as true or not, because you don't like the ramifications of something being true is not an evidential choice, it is a physiological one.

Entropy? Not sure you understand the concept quite as well as you imagine but it doesn't mean that parts of a system can't be self-organising, from which greater complexity arises. The Universe as a whole is subject to it but regions may appear to oppose the principle of entropy without violating any natural law.

You are required to show evidence that is possible where degradation is not the norm everywhere with exceptions. Every exception should have a clear causal explanation because if those exceptions are real there will be a reason. Stop-start mechanisms in functional complex systems keep levels within safe parameters but that is not an expected “just because” it will always have a means to control the levels by reading them and reacting accordingly.

I'm not required to do anything because it's an accepted fact in those fields of science where it applies, that entropy is not an impediment to localised areas in which complexity can increase.