A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

Not knowing what was before T=0 in no way avoids the causal chain. Even before the current laws of nature existed, the concept of cause and effect still applies.

Whoa, not to be picky, but could I have some evidence with that assertion?

These are not scientific concepts that can be voided with a "we don't know". These are metaphysical concepts that would transcend T=0.

Do you actually think that just demanding that certain things are metaphysical means we're bound to accept that too? I know it's a convenient little term that lets you accomplish whatever you need to at any given moment while meaning nothing at all, but we'll need something a little more firm than "I said it's metaphysical, therefore it's still a problem for you but not for me!" to proceed with this.

You are pointing out that if the term "begins to exist" is used, God is excluded. Since the Kalam has nothing to do with God, I am confused how that invalidate that specific argument with special pleading.

Come on, man. Let's not be dishonest here. The Kalam argument has nothing to do with god? That must be why it's a slightly edited version of the cosmological argument for the existence of god, then. You know, the one most earliest proposed by islamic and christian philosophers to prove the existence of their specific gods.

Gee, I don't know why I ever thought that a cosmological argument for the existence of god, referred to god.

So, you do not believe that in every possible universe, there are not a set of necessary truths (logic, numbers, etc.)?

I misspoke. What I meant was the arguments for and against the premises do not include a discussion of God.

[Esquilax]

Logic, numbers, and other metaphysical necessities do not cease to exist. Are you saying that in another possible universe 2+2 could equal 5

Yes: in a universe in which the expression we know as "2" instead meant the quantity that would be known as "2.5" in our universe. That is a universe in which the expression "2+2=5" would be mathematically correct.

Now, if you're asking whether a pair of objects and another pair of objects lumped together would make five objects, then no, but then, in that case we're talking about concrete physical objects and not the numerical label added to them for ease of communication. You aren't talking about "metaphysical necessities" above, Steve: you're talking about conceptual properties that are dependent on minds to exist. The number two doesn't exist as some objective state, through which our number two is derived; two is a conceptual label we give to a specific set in order to better quantify the universe.

[downbeatplumb]

How could we every have a theory of what was before the universe where there was no time and the laws of nature were non-existent?

Because this is no longer the only idea in town.
Scientists are working on what came before the big bang.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502...e-big-bang

A partial exception to this is a model known as eternal inflation. In this scheme, the observable Universe is part of a “pocket universe”, a bubble in a larger froth of inflation that is ongoing. In our particular bubble, inflation began and ended, but in other pocket universes – unconnected (“parallel”) and thereby unobservable to our pocket universe – inflation might have had different properties. Eternal inflation effectively emptied the regions outside of bubbles of all matter; these would have no stars, galaxies, or other familiar hallmarks.

If eternal inflation is correct, then the Big Bang is the origin of our pocket universe, but not the beginning of the whole Universe, which may have begun much earlier. The evidence for multiverses will be indirect at best, even with confirmation of inflation from Planck or other observations. In other words, eternal inflation could answer the question of what preceded the Big Bang, but still leave the question of ultimate origin out of reach.

Trillion-year cycle

Many cosmologists regard inflation as being the worst model we have, except for all the alternatives. Inflation's generic properties are pretty nice, thanks to its usefulness in solving difficult problems in cosmology, but the specifics are slippery. What caused inflation? How did it begin, and when did it end? If eternal inflation is correct, how many pocket universes could there be with similar properties to our own? Was there a Bigger Bang that started the multiverse going? Finally, since we're scientists and not philosophers, how can we tell all of these options apart: can we test them?

There is one possible alternative to inflation, which bypasses these questions and, along the way, resolves what came before the Big Bang. In Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok’s cyclic universe model, the observable Universe resides in a higher-dimensional void. Coupled to our universe is a parallel shadow universe that we can’t directly observe, but is connected via gravity. The Big Bang was not the beginning, but a moment when the two “branes” (short for “membrane”) collided. The Universe in the cyclic model goes between periods when the branes are moving apart, accelerated expansion, and new Big Bangs when the branes re-collide. While each cycle would take about a trillion years to complete, the whole cosmos could be infinitely old, bypassing the philosophical problems with inflationary models.

But I can see your argument already.
What set this all off (if true)?
It had to be a god right!

So there you have it, you can keep your bronze age delusion in safety.
Phew.

[SteveII]

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?

[FatAndFaithless]

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

How can you rule out universe-creating unicorns?

[robvalue]

We don't need to rule out god. That's an argument from ignorance, again.

What is a god? Please remind me?

[SteveII]

Logic, numbers, and other metaphysical necessities do not cease to exist. Are you saying that in another possible universe 2+2 could equal 5

Yes: in a universe in which the expression we know as "2" instead meant the quantity that would be known as "2.5" in our universe. That is a universe in which the expression "2+2=5" would be mathematically correct.

Now, if you're asking whether a pair of objects and another pair of objects lumped together would make five objects, then no, but then, in that case we're talking about concrete physical objects and not the numerical label added to them for ease of communication. You aren't talking about "metaphysical necessities" above, Steve: you're talking about conceptual properties that are dependent on minds to exist. The number two doesn't exist as some objective state, through which our number two is derived; two is a conceptual label we give to a specific set in order to better quantify the universe.

Thank you for the correction. Do these concepts (sets) exist in all possible universes? Does logic exist? Are you saying that a mind has to be there for them to exist?

---

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

How can you rule out universe-creating unicorns?

If they have all the necessary properties to accomplish the task, they cannot be ruled out. However, the definition of a unicorn is pretty firm so...the answer is no.

[FatAndFaithless]

How can you rule out universe-creating unicorns?

If they have all the necessary properties to accomplish the task, they cannot be ruled out. However, the definition of a unicorn is pretty firm so...the answer is no.

Magical unicorns, then.

[SteveII]

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.

[Esquilax]

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.

Nobody needs to "avoid the god solution," because A: god is not the default answer that we need better evidence to prevent being the case, and B: "god did it" is not a solution at all, in that it doesn't tell us how, which is the question science seeks to answer.

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

Do you believe in everything that you can't rule out, or are you only in the habit of shifting the burden of proof for concepts that you really really want to be true?

Thank you for the correction. Do these concepts (sets) exist in all possible universes?

No: without minds to observe and define them, concepts can't exist by definition.

Does logic exist? Are you saying that a mind has to be there for them to exist?

It's a complicated topic. Basically, conceptual things like logic, numbers, all that, are descriptors of phenomenon in the real world: logical syllogisms accurately describe the behavior of their topics in accordance with physical laws, numbers describe discrete quantities of physical things... they rely on minds to exist. The things they describe do not, however, as those are objectively real; a pair of rocks would still exist even if nobody was around to label them as two rocks.

But none of those things are metaphysical, either. They're physical things, of which those things you labelled as metaphysical are merely how we describe them.