A simple challenge for atheists

[SteveII]

[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]

[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.