Originally posted by Bardock42
You keep saying that my argument is that logic doesn't apply. That is not my argument at all, as I have repeatedly stated.
You are saying that it's possible logic doesn't apply. So it's up to me to show that it does. At least, that's how I've understood it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You are saying that it's possible logic doesn't apply. So it's up to me to show that it does. At least, that's how I've understood it. If I am mistaken, then I apologize.
No, I say "it is possible that logic as we know it is a phenomenon that doesn't apply outside of our universe BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT LETS DISREGARD IT AND TALK ABOUT THE OTHER FLAWS IN THE REASONING"
You keep focusing on it though, I do regret that I even brought up the possibility (not because it isn't something to consider, but because it severely hurt the exchange of ideas and arguments between us for the last couple of posts.).
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I say "it is possible that logic as we know it is a phenomenon that doesn't apply outside of our universe [b]BUT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT LETS DISREGARD IT AND TALK ABOUT THE OTHER FLAWS IN THE REASONING" [/B]
Fine, we can move away from this point if you want. But again. YOU are making the claim that "it is possible logic is a phenomenon that doesn't apply outside of our universe." So again. YOU must defend that possibility should this point ever come up again. Until then, it is not a valid refutation.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You keep focusing on it though, I do regret that I even brought up the possibility (not because it isn't something to consider, but because it severely hurt the exchange of ideas and arguments between us for the last couple of posts.).
I apologize. I know you were also making note of the cosmologists and whether they actually determined if the universe began to exist, which I also defended.
I must have missed the other points. Can you bring them up again or point me to the post they are found in?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Fine, we can move away from this point if you want. But again. YOU are making the claim that "it is possible logic is a phenomenon that doesn't apply outside of our universe." So again. YOU must defend that possibility should this point ever come up again. Until then, it is not a valid refutation.I apologize. I know you were also making note of the cosmologists and whether they actually determined if the universe began to exist, which I also defended.
I must have missed the other points. Can you bring them up again or point me to the post they are found in?
I disagree, you are making a claim. i.e. that logic as we know it applies outside of the universe, that has never been proven (and can't be proven, one of the fundamental problems with discussing anything outside of this universe which our whole understanding and perception is basically limited to, but thank you, lets leave it aside for now.
So now, logic aside you have to prove your statements apply to what you are talking about. For that we need exact definitions of the word you use.
When you say "began to exist" what does that mean exactly. Does a house begin to exist or did it already exist just as separate pieces of wood, etc. Does a flame begin to exist when a match is struck? And is the universe "beginning to exist" equivalent to a ball "beginning to exist" or are we talking about different things here muddled up by the limitations of our language. That is the first thing you'll have to define then prove.
The second thing you'll have to define is "cause". What is a cause in your definition.
Which leads to having to explain the whole "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Is that true? If so, how is it proven to be true? Why can't there be things that began to exist without having a "cause" (see there we need the correct definitions so we know what we are talking about and whether an argument is circular)
So that's the first "proof" you see how little of that is clear and how none of this is actually founded in reality, yet (perhaps you can do it, but it's not been done yet)
The same thorough definitions and proof of axioms would need to be done for the second "proof" too.
Ahem. If you want to claim logic is bound only in certain things, like, only things in the universe. It is YOU who must provide reason to believe that. Just sayin.
Originally posted by Bardock42
So now, logic aside you have to prove your statements apply to what you are talking about. For that we need exact definitions of the word you use.When you say "began to exist" what does that mean exactly. Does a house begin to exist or did it already exist just as separate pieces of wood, etc. Does a flame begin to exist when a match is struck? And is the universe "beginning to exist" equivalent to a ball "beginning to exist" or are we talking about different things here muddled up by the limitations of our language. That is the first thing you'll have to define then prove.
Cosmology has determined the universe began to exist from nothing. As in, there was absolutely nothing. no time, no space, no matter. Then, there was.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The second thing you'll have to define is "cause". What is a cause in your definition.
What is a cause? Something that makes something happen. The reason behind an effect.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Which leads to having to explain the whole "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Is that true? If so, how is it proven to be true? Why can't there be things that began to exist without having a "cause" (see there we need the correct definitions so we know what we are talking about and whether an argument is circular)
You can see this by looking at it logically. Nothing cannot produce something. To say that something can begin to exist without a cause you would be basically claiming that something can come from nothing by nothing and for nothing. Which is simply not logically sound.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The same thorough definitions and proof of axioms would need to be done for the second "proof" too.
You mean the eternal set of conditions?
Let's take it one at a time. The next part says that there can be only two causes for the universe. An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions or a being with a will and ability to create universes. That's basically saying God or Not God. There is no third option.
Agree or disagree?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Cosmology has determined the universe began to exist from nothing. As in, there was absolutely nothing. no time, no space, no matter. Then, there was.
No time, no space, no matter, no god. That's what's determined, why are we even talking then? The fact of course is that it is not been determined, it's just hypotheses, not scientific fact.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What is a cause? Something that makes something happen. The reason behind an effect.
Your cosmologist seem to have proven there was no cause. So I suppose the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is incorrect, the universe didn't, according to your cosmologist.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You can see this by looking at it logically. Nothing cannot produce something. To say that something can begin to exist without a cause you would be basically claiming that something can come from nothing by nothing and for nothing. Which is simply not logically sound.
There is no reason to believe "nothing can't produce something". That's not a rule of nature we have found, that's not a rule of logic that exists, that's just a claim. A claim that again works on the ill-defined "nothing" which no one even has a real concept of.
For one you'd have to prove that outside/before the universe was nothing with the traits of there not possibly coming anything from it.
Originally posted by TacDavey
You mean the eternal set of conditions?Let's take it one at a time. The next part says that there can be only two causes for the universe. An eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions or a being with a will and ability to create universes. That's basically saying God or Not God. There is no third option.
Agree or disagree?
I disagree, I believe there can, I don't see how you have shown in any way that the two claims are the only possible ones additionally "eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions" needs to be more clearly defined. Personally I doubt that the conditions that created the universe had to be sufficient (perhaps these conditions could have spawned any number of things and randomly created this universe we know) nor necessary (perhaps there are more conditions leading to this universe) nor do I see why these conditions had to be eternal.
Additionally you'd have to define "god" in that statement more clearly, I think earlier it was "something with a "will" (not clearly defined) that had the ability to cause the universe", is that correct?
So there's no sufficient proof of "something can't come from nothing" there's no sufficient proof for "everything that begins to exist has a cause", there's no sufficient proof of "the universe can only be caused by e s o n a s c or God"
Originally posted by Bardock42
No time, no space, no matter, no god. That's what's determined, why are we even talking then? The fact of course is that it is not been determined, it's just hypotheses, not scientific fact.
Actually, whatever the cause of the universe was transcends all those things. And I'm sorry. But the quotes clearly say that cosmology has proven that the universe had a beginning and it came from nothing. You don't think that's true? You can take it up with the experts.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Your cosmologist seem to have proven there was no cause. So I suppose the statement "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is incorrect, the universe didn't, according to your cosmologist.
I would love to see evidence of that. Especially since you can't actually prove something doesn't have a cause. The very best you can accomplish is "As far as we can see there is no cause."
Originally posted by Bardock42
There is no reason to believe "nothing can't produce something". That's not a rule of nature we have found, that's not a rule of logic that exists, that's just a claim. A claim that again works on the ill-defined "nothing" which no one even has a real concept of.
Nothing is literally the absence of ANYTHING. So how can nothing make something? If nothing made something, it wouldn't be nothing anymore. It would be the cause of something, which is not nothing. It's a cause. Don't mistakenly think of nothing as "no physical thing around." It's, as I said, the absence of ANYTHING. Physical and otherwise.
So again. Nothing cannot create something. Yet to say things can exist without a cause, you have to say that things came from nothing by nothing and for nothing. Which is not logically possible.
Originally posted by Bardock42
For one you'd have to prove that outside/before the universe was nothing with the traits of there not possibly coming anything from it.
I didn't understand this part.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, I believe there can, I don't see how you have shown in any way that the two claims are the only possible ones
Alright, Bardock. A. God. B. Not God.
Give me a C. Give me ONE example of a C that does not fit into either of those two categories.
Originally posted by Bardock42
additionally "eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions" needs to be more clearly defined.
I already defined them earlier. "Necessary and sufficient conditions" means any and all things, physical things or actions or events etc etc, that need to happen for an effect to take place.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Personally I doubt that the conditions that created the universe had to be sufficient (perhaps these conditions could have spawned any number of things and randomly created this universe we know) nor necessary (perhaps there are more conditions leading to this universe)
You're confusing what necessary and sufficient conditions means. See above.
Originally posted by Bardock42
nor do I see why these conditions had to be eternal.
Because whatever caused the universe. Be it the conditions or God, had to be outside of time since time was part of the "effect". Whatever caused the universe also caused time. Thus, it had to be outside of time. Eternal.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Additionally you'd have to define "god" in that statement more clearly, I think earlier it was "something with a "will" (not clearly defined) that had the ability to cause the universe", is that correct?
A being that transcends matter, space, and time and has a will and the ability to create a universe. Yes.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Actually, whatever the cause of the universe was transcends all those things. And I'm sorry. But the quotes clearly say that cosmology has proven that the universe had a beginning and it came from nothing. You don't think that's true? You can take it up with the experts.
I have not seen this quotes, could you give them again?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Nothing is literally the absence of ANYTHING. So how can nothing make something? If nothing made something, it wouldn't be nothing anymore. It would be the cause of something, which is not nothing. It's a cause. Don't mistakenly think of nothing as "no physical thing around." It's, as I said, the absence of ANYTHING. Physical and otherwise.So again. Nothing cannot create something. Yet to say things can exist without a cause, you have to say that things came from nothing by nothing and for nothing. Which is not logically possible.
We don't really have a concept of this "nothing".
And lets recall that your argument "everything that begins to exist has a cause" was justified by you with "something can't come from nothing" which makes your argument completely circular: "everything needs a cause, so no thing can come from nothing cause then it wouldn't be nothing but be a cause and we know everything needs a cause because something can't come from nothing...".
Originally posted by TacDavey
Alright, Bardock. A. God. B. Not God.Give me a C. Give me ONE example of a C that does not fit into either of those two categories.
That's not the argument though it is A. God or B. eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
I've no problem with tertium non datur in the case you quoted, I have a problem with it when you try to use it to exclude "temporary sets of sufficient conditions" or "
Originally posted by TacDavey
I already defined them earlier. "Necessary and sufficient conditions" means any and all things, physical things or actions or events etc etc, that need to happen for an effect to take place.You're confusing what necessary and sufficient conditions means. See above.
I am aware of what "necessary" and "sufficient" actually mean. If you want to use a different definition fair enough, but then we have to make that more clear. And it still needs to be proven that that's the only alternative.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Because whatever caused the universe. Be it the conditions or God, had to be outside of time since time was part of the "effect". Whatever caused the universe also caused time. Thus, it had to be outside of time. Eternal.
I don't see why that would be necessary, the conditions could be part of another unrelated temporary phenomenon for example.
Originally posted by TacDavey
A being that transcends matter, space, and time and has a will and the ability to create a universe. Yes.
Well not "transcend" but, not be of or part of it I suppose.
Anyways, I always wondered, how do you arrive from this minimal being now to the Christian God with his child killing and plagues and virgin rape?
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's funny, because your whole argument goes against what the "experts" said (which is that God is not necessary in cosmology)...
That's irrelevant.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I have not seen this quotes, could you give them again?
Paul Davies (Physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of orginization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."
Velenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of Space and Time pg 20: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beggining at the Big Bang."
John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press: "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."
Originally posted by Bardock42
We don't really have a concept of this "nothing".
Excuse me? Are you saying we don't know what nothing is? I just explained what nothing is.
Originally posted by Bardock42
And lets recall that your argument "everything that begins to exist has a cause" was justified by you with "something can't come from nothing" which makes your argument completely circular: "everything needs a cause, so no thing can come from nothing cause then it wouldn't be nothing but be a cause and we know everything needs a cause because something can't come from nothing...".
That's... Actually not circular at all. 😐
1. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause
and
2. Something cant come from nothing
Are two completely different points from one another. Point 2 supports point 1, but point 2 does NOT require point 1 for support. There is no circle there at all.
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not the argument though it is A. God or B. eternal set of necessary and sufficient conditions.I've no problem with tertium non datur in the case you quoted, I have a problem with it when you try to use it to exclude "temporary sets of sufficient conditions" or "
Temporary sets of conditions? I'm not using that to exclude that possibility. I'm excluding that possibility because the conditions have to be eternal for the reasons I've already said.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am aware of what "necessary" and "sufficient" actually mean. If you want to use a different definition fair enough, but then we have to make that more clear. And it still needs to be proven that that's the only alternative.
"nessesary and sufficient conditions" means every condition that needs to be met for something to happen. Again, it is the same as "Not God."
Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't see why that would be necessary, the conditions could be part of another unrelated temporary phenomenon for example.
Another temporary phenomenon? Like what? If something is outside of time it's eternal. Timeless. That's what eternal means.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well not "transcend" but, not be of or part of it I suppose.Anyways, I always wondered, how do you arrive from this minimal being now to the Christian God with his child killing and plagues and virgin rape?
That's another debate all together. Also, the child killing plague virgin rape part was unnecessary.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Paul Davies (Physisist): "The coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of orginization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing."Velenkin: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose The Nature of Space and Time pg 20: "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beggining at the Big Bang."
John D. Barrow and Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation, Oxford University Press: "Our new picture is more akin to the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning of events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."
Now it would be interesting to know what their definitions of "nothing" are, and how they know that this "nothing" actually is the "nothing" you defined, if such a thing can even exist.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Excuse me? Are you saying we don't know what nothing is? I just explained what nothing is.
You just vaguely defined it as the opposite of anything. That's a completely abstract concept, which we don't know anything about or even know. So, we have to see exactly what they are talking about and how it was proven. I think you might be taking popular science simplifications and speculation to support your point in this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4dpeJVDxs&feature=related
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png
Maybe you have links to the papers they must be referring to (though we probably wouldn't understand them)
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's... Actually not circular at all. 😐1. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause
and
2. Something cant come from nothing
Are two completely different points from one another. Point 2 supports point 1, but point 2 does NOT require point 1 for support. There is no circle there at all.
You defined "something can't come from nothing" with this "Nothing is literally the absence of ANYTHING. So how can nothing make something? If nothing made something, it wouldn't be nothing anymore. It would be the cause of something, which is not nothing."
That is circular. You said beause everything that begins to exist has a cause (1) if something begins to exist it can't come from nothing as the nothing would be a cause (2)
And you defined the (1) by saying because something can't come from nothing (2) everything that begins to exist needs a cause (1)
That's circular, you haven't proven either of those independently.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Temporary sets of conditions? I'm not using that to exclude that possibility. I'm excluding that possibility because the conditions have to be eternal for the reasons I've already said.
Well, I think they can be, but for the sake of argument I'll drop that, as you are correct in saying "if I had proven that the universe came from the nothing I defined, the conditions would have had to be timeless".
Timelessness being something we also can not imagine and make any sort of reasonable claims about, but that's beside the point.
Originally posted by TacDavey
"nessesary and sufficient conditions" means every condition that needs to be met for something to happen. Again, it is the same as "Not God."
Okay, why not just say "the universe was either caused by a creator (will and ability) or by something else"? I believe you are going to come back to the phrasing of necessary and sufficient, which means very specific things in logic, but say I agree to this. How do you now prove that it must have been the creator and not another cause?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Another temporary phenomenon? Like what? If something is outside of time it's eternal. Timeless. That's what eternal means.
I covered that above, I'll drop that line of argument for the sake of clarity.
Originally posted by TacDavey
That's another debate all together. Also, the child killing plague virgin rape part was unnecessary.
Yeah, I apologize. Could you explain the fundamental way to get to your God, though?
That are the two most interesting things to me.
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" must be "God of the Bible"
and
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" did it and not "some other cause"
?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Now it would be interesting to know what their definitions of "nothing" are, and how they know that this "nothing" actually is the "nothing" you defined, if such a thing can even exist.
If such a thing can exist? Of course it can exist. Are you saying it's impossible for there not to to be anything? There isn't more than one way to look at nothing. Nothing is nothing. There isn't anything there.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You just vaguely defined it as the opposite of anything. That's a completely abstract concept, which we don't know anything about or even know. So, we have to see exactly what they are talking about and how it was proven. I think you might be taking popular science simplifications and speculation to support your point in this way:
That isn't a very vague definition at all. In fact, it's a pretty specific one. It might be hard to think about what it would be like to experience nothing. In fact, it's impossible for out minds to do so. But that doesn't mean we know nothing about nothing. 😄
Try to think about what non-existence is. It isn't a difficult concept at all. Now try to think about what it would be like not to exist. You can't do it. That doesn't mean the definition of non-existence is vague or we don't know anything about it.
I don't know if that's the problem you're having with it or not. But we know exactly what nothing is. It's not a difficult concept. It means there isn't anything. If there was something, then it's not nothing. It's pretty basic reasoning.
Originally posted by Bardock42
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp4dpeJVDxs&feature=related
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.pngMaybe you have links to the papers they must be referring to (though we probably wouldn't understand them)
You mean for my quotes? I'd have to dig around a bit to find them. I'll get back to you on that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You defined "something can't come from nothing" with this "Nothing is literally the absence of ANYTHING. So how can nothing make something? If nothing made something, it wouldn't be nothing anymore. It would be the cause of something, which is not nothing."That is circular. You said beause everything that begins to exist has a cause (1) if something begins to exist it can't come from nothing as the nothing would be a cause (2)
And you defined the (1) by saying because something can't come from nothing (2) everything that begins to exist needs a cause (1)
That's circular, you haven't proven either of those independently.
Let's lay it out like this:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. Nothing can come from nothing.
3. If nothing is the cause, then it's a cause and thus not nothing.
Point 2 supports point 1. Point 3 supports point 2. But point 3 DOES NOT need point 1 for it's support. Point 3 is a stand alone point. This line of reasoning is not circular.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think they can be, but for the sake of argument I'll drop that, as you are correct in saying "if I had proven that the universe came from the nothing I defined, the conditions would have had to be timeless".Timelessness being something we also can not imagine and make any sort of reasonable claims about, but that's beside the point.
That isn't true. We know just what timelessness is even if we cannot grasp what it would be like to be timeless. Timelessness means not being bound by time. Being outside of time. Having no beginning and no end.
We can also make many reasonable claims about timelessness and what timelessness would mean in concerns to a subject. Such as the conditions we are talking about now.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Okay, why not just say "the universe was either caused by a creator (will and ability) or by something else"? I believe you are going to come back to the phrasing of necessary and sufficient, which means very specific things in logic, but say I agree to this. How do you now prove that it must have been the creator and not another cause?
I talk about that below.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I apologize. Could you explain the fundamental way to get to your God, though?That are the two most interesting things to me.
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" must be "God of the Bible"
and
How do you prove that "being with a will and ability to create the universe" did it and not "some other cause"
?
The first one is a new debate. And likely just as intensive as this one. I can bring up points for it, but that would mean having two pretty large debates going on at the same time. The posts would be massive. Really, it probably needs a thread of it's own if it doesn't have one already.
The second point is the next part of the argument. If either "God" or "Not God" why isn't it "Not God?" That has to do with the eternal aspect of the nessesary and sufficient conditions and the logical contradictions it brings up.
If the conditions are eternal, then they have no beginning and no end. They have always been around. But the universe, as cosmology has determined, has not. The problem is, the universe having a beginning demands that there be a point causally prior to it's existence in which it did not exist, yet the necessary and sufficient conditions for it's existence were in place (As they have always been around). You would be basically saying that everything that needs to happen for the universe to be created has happened, yet the universe has not been created. Which is logically impossible. So it cannot be "Not God". And thus has to be "God." God in the sense of a being with a will and ability to create universes at least.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am pretty tired of debating, so I'd give you that as last word.I'm also not interested in debating your argument about why it must be the God of the bible, I'd just like to hear it if you'd be willing to tell me.
Sure. The argument I am most well versed in is the argument concerning the historical evidence of Jesus and the Resurrection. It is pretty widely accepted that there was a man named Jesus, who was a teacher and "wonder-worker" and was crucified and had reports of seeing him after his death. Not only from his followers but several outside sources as well.
There are several different arguments concerning the last part. But none of them really hold up, I would say. Some claim the disciples stole the body. But not only does this not account for the sightings of Jesus afterward, but this would have been pretty hard to do considering the tomb was guarded by armed soldiers as well as sealed with a large rock.
Some say Jesus never fully died on the cross. They thought he was dead and took him down and buried him. Later, Jesus woke up and returned to his disciples. It isn't difficult to see the logical problems with this argument. For one, Jesus had been hung on a cross for quite a while, had taken a spear in his side, and was presumed to be dead. Yet apparently he had survived all that laying in a tomb with no medical attention. And had apparently enough strength to move the rock sealing the tomb and somehow evade the guards posted there.
And so on and so forth. It's basically about providing logical reasoning for considering Jesus was who He said He was.
