(May 9, 2013 at 3:56 am)fr0d0 Wrote: *presents Min with the problem of nothing to something*

But.... nothing is something.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:42 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Science can disprove not prove. We disproved a eternal universe via experiment. Therefore if the universe is not eternal it's existence must of started in a point in time or 13.7 billion years ago plus or minus.

So it is your contention that the Big Bang was creation ex nihilo, and not a transformation of (something, we know not what) that was already existent? And that we somehow have been able to rule out the latter?

Because if that's true, and you can demonstrate it, that would be news to a whole bunch of physicists that have been working on that particular problem.

Your Nobel prize awaits.

Before the big bang is not a scientific question and hence why no scientific theory has been proposed to explain it. Multi verse theory is not a scientific because it has no way of giving concrete experimental data. ex nihilo is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem because ex nihilio does not exist in science because the concept of nothing does not exist. Science can only deal with space time and matter. If none of those are present science cannot be applied.

---

(May 9, 2013 at 1:48 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: What evidence? In mathematics you don't prove something using evidence. You prove it using logic and reason alone. That is what I've done here.

You seem to be answering a question I didn't ask.

But as you mentioned evidence. Put up or shut up. Logic and reason are insufficient on their own for real world application.

You can skew logic to prove black is white, (and then get killed at the next pelican crossing) and reason can be misused as well.

The ancient philosophers used these things alone and screwed up many things until science came along with EVIDENCE.

Well you were being ambiguous.

Skewed logic and reason is not logic and reason at all.

If you dispute the validity of per logic and reason then you must dispute the validity of pure mathematics because that is based only on logic and reason and not evidence.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: What evidence? In mathematics you don't prove something using evidence. You prove it using logic and reason alone. That is what I've done here.

Because logic and 'reason(?)' aren't evidence?

Okay then. I know I'd hate to be the one to defend that.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: What evidence? In mathematics you don't prove something using evidence. You prove it using logic and reason alone. That is what I've done here.

Because logic and 'reason(?)' aren't evidence?

Okay then. I know I'd hate to be the one to defend that.

Those not scientific evidence which is the kind of evidence I believe most people here are asking for. I gave logical evidence in my OP for a Deist G-d which no one has refuted yet. Scientific evidence is experimental results.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

I am aware of no definition of 'natural' which insists that we have total and complete knowledge of what constitutes 'natural'. Is atomic force and gravity supernatural? People used to think so. People used to worship the sun because they thought it was a god. Your assertion implies that science can never progress in understanding the natural world beyond what it knows today, and you have taken to arbitrarily deciding what is, and what is not, natural.

Science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once thought to be supernatural. I see no reason to expect this will change, because 'supernatural' is really just a polite term for 'things we are currently too ignorant to explain naturally'.

You also fail to explain why we should call this gap in our knowledge 'god'. It is just assertions spawning assertions.

"GOd did it" is not the automatic answer to shit we don't know yet anymore. YOu need to prove god did it first, not just say he did because that's the only reason YOU can think of.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm)xdrgnh Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:55 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: Because logic and 'reason(?)' aren't evidence?

Okay then. I know I'd hate to be the one to defend that.

Those not scientific evidence which is the kind of evidence I believe most people here are asking for. I gave logical evidence in my OP for a Deist G-d which no one has refuted yet. Scientific evidence is experimental results.

Logic and 'reason(?)' don't constitute scientific evidence? Interesting... I wonder then: what does? Certainly not anything based solidly upon these.

I saw a bunch of nonsense, myself. Maybe I'll refute it later... perhaps when I don't have to leave possibly immediately But then, what's the point of illustrating stupidity as a small child colors a book with a dog intestines?

It wouldn't do to forget 'observation and' from that last statement... someone might get the wrong idea. Something about intersubjectivity, maybe it'll come to you.

(May 9, 2013 at 2:02 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:33 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Because if it's not material or dependent upon space time and matter then it must not be natural. Natural by it's very definition is the universe which is composed of only space time and matter. I've shown logically to account for it's existence something that is not of space time and matter must be the cause of it's existence. This cause we call G-d and G-d is not natural and if it's not natural it's super natural.

I am aware of no definition of 'natural' which insists that we have total and complete knowledge of what constitutes 'natural'. Is atomic force and gravity supernatural? People used to think so. People used to worship the sun because they thought it was a god. Your assertion implies that science can never progress in understanding the natural world beyond what it knows today, and you have taken to arbitrarily deciding what is, and what is not, natural.

Science has an excellent track record of explaining what was once thought to be supernatural. I see no reason to expect this will change, because 'supernatural' is really just a polite term for 'things we are currently too ignorant to explain naturally'.

You also fail to explain why we should call this gap in our knowledge 'god'. It is just assertions spawning assertions.

The material world and its phenomena- Nature. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature

This is everyone definition of nature it's bound to the material world. I shown that the material world alone is not sufficient to explain why it exists. The cause of the existence of the material world must be non material because non material stuff does not need a cause for existence. Only material stuff needs a cause for existence and once material stuff exists it cannot create no new material stuff because of the laws of physics. We have a lot to learn about the natural world still. However we can only learn about the natural world because we are natural beings or material beings. The difference between worshiping the sun and believe in a Deist G-d is that believing the sun to be something that is not natural has no logical necessity. As I've shown it is logically necessary to believe in a non material thing to explain the existence of material matter because science has shown that material cannot be created out of other material. AKA conservation of mass and energy, momentum ect.

---

(May 9, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:57 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: Those not scientific evidence which is the kind of evidence I believe most people here are asking for. I gave logical evidence in my OP for a Deist G-d which no one has refuted yet. Scientific evidence is experimental results.

Logic and 'reason(?)' don't constitute scientific evidence? Interesting... I wonder then: what does? Certainly not anything based solidly upon these.

I saw a bunch of nonsense, myself. Maybe I'll refute it later... perhaps when I don't have to leave possibly immediately But then, what's the point of illustrating stupidity as a small child colors a book with a dog intestines?

It wouldn't do to forget 'observation and' from that last statement... someone might get the wrong idea. Something about intersubjectivity, maybe it'll come to you.

Experimental result falls under observation. The main difference between science and philosophy is that science deals only empirical evidence while philosophy only deals with logic and reason. What I'm telling you is common knowledge in the philosophy and scientific community.

(May 9, 2013 at 2:09 pm)xdrgnh Wrote: The material world and its phenomena- Nature. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nature

This is everyone definition of nature it's bound to the material world. I shown that the material world alone is not sufficient to explain why it exists. The cause of the existence of the material world must be non material because non material stuff does not need a cause for existence. Only material stuff needs a cause for existence and once material stuff exists it cannot create no new material stuff because of the laws of physics. We have a lot to learn about the natural world still. However we can only learn about the natural world because we are natural beings or material beings. The difference between worshiping the sun and believe in a Deist G-d is that believing the sun to be something that is not natural has no logical necessity. As I've shown it is logically necessary to believe in a non material thing to explain the existence of material matter because science has shown that material cannot be created out of other material. AKA conservation of mass and energy, momentum ect.

I have pointed out that you are making the assumption, which has been discredited so many times over the last few centuries, that we have an understanding of the natural world so complete that we can make the certain determination that we can safely say we know that things exist outside of it. Our laws of physics are strong but they are not complete. Our observational tools are powerful, but by no means as good as they can get. So, when you say 'the natural world and its phenomena', you mean 'as we currently understand them'. I am not so arrogant to think that 'as we currently understand them' = 'as perfect an understanding as we will ever have', but this is precisely what you are doing.

If we really did have total understanding of nature and its processes, then it would be logically necessary to invoke a supernatural phenomena. As we do not have total understanding, to invoke a supernatural phenomena is just burying our heads in the sand.

(May 9, 2013 at 1:50 pm)xdrgnh Wrote:

(May 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: So it is your contention that the Big Bang was creation ex nihilo, and not a transformation of (something, we know not what) that was already existent? And that we somehow have been able to rule out the latter?

Because if that's true, and you can demonstrate it, that would be news to a whole bunch of physicists that have been working on that particular problem.

Your Nobel prize awaits.

Before the big bang is not a scientific question and hence why no scientific theory has been proposed to explain it. Multi verse theory is not a scientific because it has no way of giving concrete experimental data. ex nihilo is a philosophical problem not a scientific problem because ex nihilio does not exist in science because the concept of nothing does not exist. Science can only deal with space time and matter. If none of those are present science cannot be applied.

And yet, despite all of the problems that this question presents, you claim that the question has been answered sufficiently to rule out an eternal universe.

What you have failed to do is demonstrate HOW this question has been answered.

We'll wait.