(January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 2:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: We don't need to rule out god. That's an argument from ignorance, again.

What is a god? Please remind me?

I was pointing out the logical conclusion of claiming we cannot know anything. You can't say we don't even know if cause and effect existed in one sentence and in the very next say that we can definitively rule out God.

For the purposes of this argument, God did not begin to exist and is someone who could create a universe out of nothing.

I don't recall anyone saying that we can "rule out God", though I may be mistaken.

The entire point that you seem to be missing is that our understanding of causality and the laws of physics and every tool we have for addressing reality in investigation into what is "true", is entirely predicated on the universe post t=0, and cannot be used to address anything before t=0, as we have absolutely no way of knowing if our current understanding of reality would be consistent, since we have no current ability to measure any time before t=0.

You have absolutely zero jusitication for applying current ideas of physics, causality, and nature to a situation in which we have no clue if those things even existed, let alone existed as we currently understand them.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm)SteveII Wrote: For the purposes of this argument, God did not begin to exist and is someone who could create a universe out of nothing.

Which I think is the biggest flaw with the cosmological argument, the way it's willing to bend on every detail of god's existence except the parts that allow it to solve the problem the argument demands must exist. It's the most obvious sign that what you're doing here isn't meant to lead to a proper conclusion based on evidence, but to the god conclusion specifically, because it's so damn convenient that here's your argument, and oh look, here's an answer that just happens to have exactly the properties required to deal with that and nothing else!

Strip away all the nouns and details, and what you're essentially saying is "here's the thing that solves the problem that my argument asserts to exist by fiat." You're demanding that a god-shaped hole exists in the universe, without providing any evidence, and then putting on a big show of considering an answer before pulling a pre-fabricated god shaped piece out from behind your back and acting like you never had that in mind beforehand. You're formulating your problem to fit the solution you want.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm)SteveII Wrote: For the purposes of this argument, God did not begin to exist and is someone who could create a universe out of nothing.

Which I think is the biggest flaw with the cosmological argument, the way it's willing to bend on every detail of god's existence except the parts that allow it to solve the problem the argument demands must exist. It's the most obvious sign that what you're doing here isn't meant to lead to a proper conclusion based on evidence, but to the god conclusion specifically, because it's so damn convenient that here's your argument, and oh look, here's an answer that just happens to have exactly the properties required to deal with that and nothing else!

Strip away all the nouns and details, and what you're essentially saying is "here's the thing that solves the problem that my argument asserts to exist by fiat." You're demanding that a god-shaped hole exists in the universe, without providing any evidence, and then putting on a big show of considering an answer before pulling a pre-fabricated god shaped piece out from behind your back and acting like you never had that in mind beforehand. You're formulating your problem to fit the solution you want.

Not to mention that all the tools he's using to "measure" that god-shaped solution independent of our universe only exist inside our universe.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:58 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 2:49 pm)SteveII Wrote: For the purposes of this argument, God did not begin to exist and is someone who could create a universe out of nothing.

Which I think is the biggest flaw with the cosmological argument, the way it's willing to bend on every detail of god's existence except the parts that allow it to solve the problem the argument demands must exist. It's the most obvious sign that what you're doing here isn't meant to lead to a proper conclusion based on evidence, but to the god conclusion specifically, because it's so damn convenient that here's your argument, and oh look, here's an answer that just happens to have exactly the properties required to deal with that and nothing else!

Strip away all the nouns and details, and what you're essentially saying is "here's the thing that solves the problem that my argument asserts to exist by fiat." You're demanding that a god-shaped hole exists in the universe, without providing any evidence, and then putting on a big show of considering an answer before pulling a pre-fabricated god shaped piece out from behind your back and acting like you never had that in mind beforehand. You're formulating your problem to fit the solution you want.

Isn't the goal of a logical argument to prove a conclusion? Is it relevant that you don't like the conclusion or can anticipate the ramifications? You demand evidence. The evidence is that:

1. To the best of our understanding, matter (including universes) does not spring into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. the universe exists.

It seems the collective lot of you want to argue from incredulity first and then throw up a few objections that science will figure it out, there are actual infinities, or maybe causality does not exist before T=0.

You give no conclusive defeaters to the premises so the conclusion remains: It is more likely than not that the universe had a cause.

As you already know, if the universe (or multiverse) had a cause, God is a candidate.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: Your buddies here seem to think that we can gather evidence and theorize what was before the big bang to avoid the God solution. It seems you believe we cannot know anything before T=0.

Meh, good for them? On the other hand, you might not be putting forward a very thorough representation of the responses you've been given.

Quote:If we cannot know anything, how can you rule out God?

No, again, full stop..there is no ruling. There are no rules, if there are rules we don't know what they are. Understand? Its radio silence. I'm not commenting on cause in the before the before because we have no purchase in that regard. As far as "god" yeah, sure, I can rule that out. Characters on the page don;t jump out of the page, let alone create everything around them up to and including the page from whence they came. I can point to a god all day long in support of this...can you point to a god?

For example, to answer your question about whether or not there are necessary truths in any possible universe - maybe..we don't know...and they may not be the same between two "possible universes" if there are. Radio silence. That's why our rules can;t be trusted to provide accurate conclusions in those other "possible universes"...we can only make statements about this one if we want that sort of confidence...and in this universe, the argument just doesn't work the way you want it to, maybe it does in some other universe...how should I know...how would you know? Would it be relevant if it did? Nope. As you've stated, the purpose of all of this is to prove conclusions, which the argument you've given simply cannot do. This is regardless of whether or not science will find this or find that - I'm certainly not holding my breath for man to ever enjoy complete knowledge, personally...by any means.

"God" isn't a candidate for a cause anymore than Dorian Grey is a candidate for a cause - even if there is a cause, which we simply can't determine when approached the way you decided to approach it. Lets not forget that were talking about ghost stories here Steve......

(January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What does "before" mean in that context? Whats before the beginning Steve? With no time how do we determine a causal relationship, or the direction in which that relationship flows, without all of this..wtf is a causal relationship at all? That's quite the demand you've placed, don't you think?

Again...even if it did, even if this was true, because our ability to reason is based on the behavior of -this- when/where, we can't trust the conclusions it generates some otherwhere/when. See how insidious this whole bit is? Done, full stop, fin....the rules cant be trusted, it's not the claims themselves "before the before" - the issue is fundamental..or maybe it isn't....lol (there's nowhere to go, it all collapses into contradiction or uncertainty - no statements can be made that aren't self refuting, not even this statement).

This is the terminus of knowledge for us by any means we have yet discovered or invented in order to model or predict -anything-. You can certainly make the demand, as you've done, but once you demand that these rules apply before the before they apply to whatever was in the before the before...and that includes the god you want to smuggle in - and if they don't apply to this god business, then why do they apply to the universe? If the set of things that "doesnt begin to exist" includes only "god"...or the set of things that "begin to exist" excludes only "god" then the words chosen are a smokescreen. I can rephrase your argument to directly refer to the concept which you are concealing. At which point....the statements turn into complete gibberish.

Your buddies here seem to think that we can gather evidence and theorize what was before the big bang to avoid the God solution. It seems you believe we cannot know anything before T=0.

If we cannot know anything, how can you rule out God?

Nothing can exist before time and space. You the theist would have to give the evidence of something existing before the big bang.

Question what is the god solution?

I want a detailed explanation with supporting evidence that explains:

How "god" created time.
How "god" created space.
How "god" created matter.

(January 26, 2015 at 2:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: Your buddies here seem to think that we can gather evidence and theorize what was before the big bang to avoid the God solution. It seems you believe we cannot know anything before T=0.

If we cannot know anything, how can you rule out God?

Somehow, I suspect that you didn't arrive at "god exists" because you couldn't prove otherwise. Because that would require that you either accept all other deities that you cannot disprove, or that you set out to disprove them via a method that can just as readily be applied to the specific one you chose.

Sooo... which is it?

(January 26, 2015 at 3:58 pm)dyresand Wrote: Nothing can exist before time and space. You the theist would have to give the evidence of something existing before the big bang.

Of course there was something before the big bang. Whatever caused the big bang.

(January 26, 2015 at 1:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: My impression is that the consensus among cosmologists is that our universe is not infinite in the past so you must be saying that the universe (time and space) could have popped into existence uncaused?

Your impression is false. There is no consensus among cosmologists as to what may have happened "before" the Big Bang. There are various ideas floated out there, but they are still primarily ideas. Here are some of them:

- Time was expressed as a spacial dimension during Planck Time. This would make the Universe's temporal beginning "curved," as well as removing the Singularity from contention. The universe would have been extremely tightly compressed, but not all the way down to a singularity.

- Time can be seen as a pair of cones, with their tips at the singularity: >< The 'cone" we are in exists 'after' the Big Bang. The other cone exists "before" the Big Bang. Time, as we understand it, is running backwards in the other cone.

- Quantum fluctuations are creating Universes fairly regularly, but since each is distinct from all the others, each one has its own unique space/time.

Those are just a few. One thing I have never, ever encountered as an argument from cosmologists is the claim that the Universe had a "beginning" at the Big Bang. They all agree that the Universe as we know it began to inflate rapidly around 13.8 billion years ago, but nobody seems to be saying that the Universe simply popped into existence.

---

(January 26, 2015 at 4:34 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(January 26, 2015 at 3:58 pm)dyresand Wrote: Nothing can exist before time and space. You the theist would have to give the evidence of something existing before the big bang.

Of course there was something before the big bang. Whatever caused the big bang.

How can cause and effect mean anything without space or time?