Quick Poll - Do you believe in God?

[mastertrell]

Here is another explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-GmZaJxLY

its from a bbc programme 'what happened before the big bang' which had a lot of potential explanations for the big bang. God was not one of the options.

I mentioned M-brane in my argument, and I watched this episode of through the wormhole, great series, but nothing in this clip counters my rational I laid forth. You have dimensional branes which by definition are boundaries and occupy and define spatial dimensions, since this is an effect where is the cause. If you read M-brane the math fits completely when given the known variables but the theory does not account for the creation of the branes, you see they have to always have been there for the theory to work out. He even said in the clip that the big bang people pigeon holed themselves in, because they can’t explain what happened before inflation, where the mass energy came from. He suffers from the same problem, he needs gravity to pull the branes and the branes themselves before he can spark the creation.

Also I never said god in the traditional sense of the bible, Koran, what ever old dusty text you want to mention. My whole argument is that there would need to be something operating above the limitations of logic to create the universe we are in. That’s it, you can’t extrapolate what the process is, whether entity or supernatural event, the logical framework just sets up and shows something outside of logic started the universe process.

Now I do find it funny, especially by posting videos which support my hypothesis and the lack of understanding that people have of the known laws of physics. It’s ironic that when religious people post their beliefs you rip them a new hole for reason such as blindly following a book without critical thinking. Yet have you ever challenged your own beliefs with critical thinking or do you just accept what scientists tell you, even when they themselves can’t agree on theory(an example is time, in relativity it is generated internally within the relationship of 2 constructs, in quantum theory you have to have an outside time dimension in order for waves to collapse evenly, there are many areas scientists disagree on). If you pride yourself on being atheist and believe in inductive reasoning and observation, acquaint yourselves better with math, physics, and logic flow otherwise you won’t really know how the universe works. I am an atheists worst nightmare, someone who has studied physics and came to the conclusion that an intelligent design is the only logical conclusion for the nature of the universe.

[Minimalist]

Actually, I did read your very first post....perhaps you remember it - which concluded with:

which leads me to the fact that it's very existence let's me no as a reminder that some sort of process or cause not necessarily a god or being but some sort of act of supernatural effect CAUSED matter to come into existence at some point.

I must admit that at that point I wrote you off as just another whack job with "supernatural" on the brain. Sorry. There are too many good posters around here to waste time with your walls of text which say exactly nothing.

[mastertrell]

For instance, the possible recent discovery of particles moving faster than the speed of light. Nobody thought this was possible until a few weeks ago. If confirmed, it will force further examination of a theory that has appeared rock solid for a century.

You and IATIA both have good points I will address. First for the cause and effect assumption IATIA brought up. Yes you can lump all instances into one or the other intial starting category I was talking about. The universe was either logical or illogical in it’s creation, they are mutually exclusive, meaning that to be in one they can’t be in the other. Now we now concretely about logic and what entails a logical principle, so ANY logical cosmological model would be grouped into the logical creation model, and by any I mean any, the framework accounts for scientific discoveries not yet made or unknown. Now if by “every instance” can’t be accounted for you mean the certain instances where the universe just tends to form itself first without cause, or changes it’s internal working laws over time without corresponding affects to influence it, then yes your right that is illogical so we group all illogical theories on the other side in the illogical creation model. If you do come up with some highly contorted creation model that incorporates both logical and illogical elements then by reasoning it contains illogical elements and thus satisfies the condition in which a process outside of logic started the universe.

And on to ElDinero’s post. I love when we cut away to the truth and more mysteries appear for us to solve, it’s always exciting. Now while I already went over why my framework catches the known and unknown, it is a 2 state simulator and accounts for unknown science like I said. Since we do not fully know the universe and it is always changing, how can one simply say intelligent design is not one of the possibilities since we don’t have a definitive understanding yet. I have presented a solid enough situation that shows an illogical process at work, can you show me proof that a logically unbound power does not exist. In my model, the ball is in my court, please present me with a situation where one, just one model is presented that lies purely on logic (theoretical, with mathematical, and deduction) that can exist on it’s own without the help of a higher power needing it to come into being. I don’t think anyone can and that’s my point

[Violet]

I must admit that at that point I wrote you off as just another whack job with "supernatural" on the brain. Sorry. There are too many good posters around here to waste time with your walls of text which say exactly nothing.

Funny... this is precisely what I do.

What does it say of me that I do as a 50+ year old man at the ripe young age of 18?

[ElDinero]

Since we do not fully know the universe and it is always changing, how can one simply say intelligent design is not one of the possibilities since we don’t have a definitive understanding yet. I have presented a solid enough situation that shows an illogical process at work, can you show me proof that a logically unbound power does not exist. In my model, the ball is in my court, please present me with a situation where one, just one model is presented that lies purely on logic (theoretical, with mathematical, and deduction) that can exist on it’s own without the help of a higher power needing it to come into being. I don’t think anyone can and that’s my point

So far I count argument from incredulity and shifting the burden of proof. What else ya got?

[IATIA]

You and IATIA both have good points I will address. First for the cause and effect assumption IATIA brought up. Yes you can lump all instances into one or the other intial starting category I was talking about. The universe was either logical or illogical in it’s creation, they are mutually exclusive, meaning that to be in one they can’t be in the other. Now we now concretely about logic and what entails a logical principle, so ANY logical cosmological model would be grouped into the logical creation model, and by any I mean any, the framework accounts for scientific discoveries not yet made or unknown. Now if by “every instance” can’t be accounted for you mean the certain instances where the universe just tends to form itself first without cause, or changes it’s internal working laws over time without corresponding affects to influence it, then yes your right that is illogical so we group all illogical theories on the other side in the illogical creation model. If you do come up with some highly contorted creation model that incorporates both logical and illogical elements then by reasoning it contains illogical elements and thus satisfies the condition in which a process outside of logic started the universe.

Logic is based on proven or accepted premises and as I do not accept causality as a fact or premise, this then requires proof of causality to establish that as a premise.

To accept causality requires an uncaused beginning (which breaks causality anyway) or we have infinite regression, neither of which I can logically accept.

If the uncaused beginning were to be a god, that is just as illogical because this god would necessitate a first thought or desire. Another uncaused event. If this god's first thought can cause it's first thought (which, in and of itself, I have no issue with at this time), then the universe can cause itself.

Unless you have definitive proof that causality is an absolute then that is an unacceptable premise.

[mastertrell]

Hey I resemble that I am an educated whack job, not your everyday run of the mill whack job. You know I do try and shorten my walls of text but that is impossible when talking about scientific inquiry, you have to be very percise. You do know supernatural = illogical and vice versa but since you find it hard to follow even simple logical flow or as we say in computer science a flow guide, I will let that slide. I find it hillarious that if i am talking nonsense you couldn't point out my flaw in reasoning, so i must conclude i have no flaw in my reasoning. You just don't want anybody to challenge your atheism "beliefs" which I respect.

Oh eldinero, I did put forth my side of the evidence in that wall of text i posted, i saw no rebuttal to my conclusions, no specifics pointed out which you say are false. My whole premise denies the fact that any logical process can't account for the universe as we know it. Please show me my error by making a simple complete model of how the universe can come into being from absolute nothing. That's not shifting the burden that's called called waiting for a rebutal.

[IATIA]

Please show me my error by making a simple complete model of how the universe can come into being from absolute nothing. That's not shifting the burden that's called called waiting for a rebutal.

I have certainly never said the universe came into being from nothing, nor have I ever insinuated as such even taking into account subjective semantics.

I have stated that there is no first cause and causality is unproven. If there is a god, then there was never nothing. If there is no god, then there still was never nothing.

A short elaboration on my particular take:

Time does not exist except within our linear perspective. All that is, was, or will ever be is now. There is no beginning, there is no end, it just is. Though we observe causality and passage of time, they are but illusions. Right up there with free will, mirages and hallucinations. And if you are interested in the next level, each of us are our own realities and the reality of all existence is nothing more than our awareness within our own minds.

[The Grand Nudger]

Firstly, what you have here is a philosophical argument. Calling it "scientific inquiry" is a bit of a stretch. Secondly, the argument here (and we've already been over this) is a cosmological argument. Unmoved Mover. We've already been over why it doesn't work.

You ended your post with the setup for a god of the gaps (again). If we don't know default to goddidit™. Again, that's not the way it works.

Neither of these two are new around here.

[mastertrell]

[quote='IATIA' pid='193617' dateline='1318814351']
[quote]
Logic is based on proven or accepted premises and as I do not accept causality as a fact or premise, this then requires proof of causality to establish that as a premise.

To accept causality requires an uncaused beginning (which breaks causality anyway) or we have infinite regression, neither of which I can logically accept.[/quote]

OMG finally someone with a brain thank you from giving me something I can actually respond too. okay first off let me define logic, it's slightly different in meaning from what you say, let me define it.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the formal systematic study of the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning.

One thing though, cause and effect are at the heart of analytical logic and the same math behind entropy is used to describe linear time and how effects are mathematically impossible to happen before the cause. I may not know the immediate cause of say a baseball through my window but I can observe it breaking through but that event cannot happen until the baseball is hit into the window. Since effect follow a pattern laid out by a cause, the cracking of the glass, you would see glass crack and say why do the crack follow a certain pattern, mathematically it must be determined by cause. If you state then that the universe can create effect without cause, what pattern is it following, this would be illogical and hence you are proving my point about needing something illogical to start the process. If you have a god, by very definition that is not logical because it can change the very innate observable laws and reasoning to go with it thus breaking logic and supporting my simulation. Here is a link for more information on causality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality_(physics)

If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. This is a long term acceptance in mathematics when applied to any scientific research. Much to your own doubt causality is proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Again my simulation holds up because causality is an absolute proof, I hope I have clarified it for you.