12 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo no time , no possibility of cause and effect ,no matter or energy , no gravity , no electromagnitism , no cause . No time because there is no cause and effect , but no cause and effect because there is no time for an effect to occur. Chicken and the egg problem X 1,000,000 or just 'plain silly' ? You need time for an effect (the universe) but you can't have time without cause and effect!
Cause and effect are things that require a time factor. It's plain ridiculous to ask "what created the universe" because time is a property of the universe. Cause and effect don't operate without time, and "before" the universe time didn't exist, hence no cause and effect. I've pointed this out before. So you see, your question is necessarily loaded with assumptions that just don't make sense.
So hocus pocus...universe...and you thought God was supposed to be magical fairytale stuff!!
PS- 'Cause and effect don't operate without time' ...is a circular assumption which you can't prove. One other thing to consider is that cause and effect CAN operate with eternity (ie something outside of time)but since your argument is circular because you discount eternity before you even begin this is an option you won't consider.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterand all that wordplay, and you STILL don't have a shred of evidence for god. I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say "we don't know", but there's still no evidence of god.
So no time , no possibility of cause and effect ,no matter or energy , no gravity , no electromagnitism , no cause . No time because there is no cause and effect , but no cause and effect because there is no time for an effect to occur. Chicken and the egg problem X 1,000,000 or just 'plain silly' ? You need time for an effect (the universe) but you ca ...[text shortened]... ecause you discount eternity before you even begin this is an option you won't consider.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOk , good...you've got as far as realising logically there can be no '(c)'. You have also realised that 'what happened before the big bang is beyond the purview of science'. So what happens if we apply some philosophical logic to this problem? What we find is that even though eternity should be outside our experience we do have lots of experiences (and scientific evidence) for things having beginnnings and causes. This simple little thing cause and effect, without which Socrates couldn't have said "I think(effect) therefore I am(cause)". If life 'beyond' the universe is to be in anyway logically consistent with life 'within' the universe then we need to preserve this principle. We can't preserve this logic if we accept the effect without a cause(something from nothing) idea. So the only logical solution is the cause that never began idea (pre-existent eternity) thus preserving the logical concept 'everything that has a beginning has to have a cause'. Therefore, you have to decide which statement is more logical...
No I don't and neither do you. The difference is I'm not going to create a magical fairy tale to "solve" this little problem. I've already stated that what happened before the Big Bang is beyond the purview of science. Trying to apply such principles to metaphysical questions gets you nowhere. Of course, you don't really believe in such principles anyway.
(a)'There can be something that has a beginning(effect) but has no cause , but there can't be something that has no beginning'
(b) 'There can be something that has no beginning(eternity) but there can't be something that has a beginning (effect) without there being a cause.
One of these statements breaks the the basic logical(and scientific) principle of cause and effect , one does not. Intuitively , (b) has always sounded more logical to me and I think it does to most people.
Now, would you like to discuss logic or magical fairy tales?
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think you will find that this thread was about clarifying eternity. You can still be an atheist and believe in eternity if you want (I promise I won't shout 'yippee I've proved God' if you do) . I haven't got as far as God yet, other than to use this word to symbolise eternity. You're just not able to have one argument at a time are you? What happened to your objective , scientific brain ...or are you still too wrapped up in your 'agenda' of 'stopping me from proving God' to think clearly and objectively about this. You are well into the end game before we have even decided who is white!
and all that wordplay, and you STILL don't have a shred of evidence for god. I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say "we don't know", but there's still no evidence of god.
Also , you are not quite so happy to say 'we don't know'. You sounded very sure of yourself when putting forward your 'something from nothing' idea. As for evidence , I think I have shown that the most logically consistent solution to the question of 'how did life get here?' is eternity , whether that means an eternal universe or eternal God or gods or 'creation force' is not the issue at hand here. I have no great agenda other than letting logic speak for itself.Your problem with eternity is not the logic but where you think it might take you..but that's not my problem.
In future , please stick to the debate..it's quite easy really... each thread has a heading and if you read it first.....
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou don't have a very good grasp on logic. Your premises are self-contradictory (besides being poorly written and hard to undertstand).
Ok , good...you've got as far as realising logically there can be no '(c)'. You have also realised that 'what happened before the big bang is beyond the purview of science'. So what happens if we apply some philosophical logic to this problem? What we find is that even though eternity should be outside our experience we do have lots of experiences (and ...[text shortened]... st people.
Now, would you like to discuss logic or magical fairy tales?
It's absurd to argue that something outside the universe has to follow the laws of the universe. It's rather absurd to argue that there is anything outside the universe.
KM: If life 'beyond' the universe is to be in anyway logically consistent with life 'within' the universe then we need to preserve this principle. We can't preserve this logic if we accept the effect without a cause(something from nothing) idea.
Than you promptly go out and create something from nothing i.e. a God. You contradict your basic premise and fail to preserve the principle.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by Brother EdwinSpot on! ....the uinverse itself could be eternal.I'm not sure this would logically make life random and meaningless but ...you've accepted the concept of eternity at least in theory?Ok , so leaving god out of it .... Which do you think is most likely...the universe coming out of nothing or the universe being eternal?
If god dosent need a beggining then why cant the universe not need a beggining thus there is no need to make up god and we can just say that everything is random and meaningless.
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNope....it's past you by that one ..did I say eternity was 'something from nothing'...can I clarify again ( and again and again) Eternity ALWAYS HAS BEEN ..therefore does not have to 'come from' anything. Only things that have beginnings have to 'come from' somewhere. You have yet to understand the true definition of eternity which is why I started this.
You don't have a very good grasp on logic. Your premises are self-contradictory (besides being poorly written and hard to undertstand).
It's absurd to argue that something outside the universe has to follow the laws of the universe. It's rather absurd to argue that there is anything outside the universe.
KM: If life 'beyond' the universe is ...[text shortened]... thing i.e. a God. You contradict your basic premise and fail to preserve the principle.e
It may be 'absurd' and hard to imagine but it's the only absurdity we've got. Of course , we don't have to assume that any of the logic that applies in our universe applies anywhere else. But if we don't then where does that leave science or logic but dashed to the ground in these matters. We might as well make up 'plain silly' stuff and not bother with trying to be logical at all. You would then be agreeing with the mystics and religion would you not ( in your own mind) Watch out here because you will end up sawing off the very branch you are sitting on. Are you saying you want me to be less logical....curious?!?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
12 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhat is with the obession with causaility. Some events are random- implying that there was no causality- so why can't the universe be a random occurence. Scientists have observed (in a very liberal sense) the random occurence of particles emerging out of nothing. In fact, some scientists speculate that the universe might be a fluctuation of nothing into something and then back into nothing.
So no time , no possibility of cause and effect ,no matter or energy , no gravity , no electromagnitism , no cause . No time because there is no cause and effect , but no cause and effect because there is no time for an effect to occur. Chicken and the egg problem X 1,000,000 or just 'plain silly' ? You need time for an effect (the universe) but you ca ...[text shortened]... ecause you discount eternity before you even begin this is an option you won't consider.
You ask, "can something come out of nothing"? I think it is more important to ask if something turn into nothing?
In a sense they can (anti-imatter/mater annihilation- correct me if i'm wrong), so the reverse might work as well (if as Scotty says that there is no time outside the universe- this would be plausible).
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KSpot on. I've tried geetting across to KM that causality is only something that happens within the universe, and cannot, therefore, be something that happens to the universe, but he refuses to accept it because it undermines his argument.
What is with the obession with causaility. Some events are random- implying that there was no causality- so why can't the universe be a random occurence. Scientists have observed (in a very liberal sense) the random occurence of particles emerging out of nothing. In fact, some scientists speculate that the universe might be a fluctuation of nothing into so ...[text shortened]... ell (if as Scotty says that there is no time outside the universe- this would be plausible).
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow do you know this?? Are you aware of the laws of things OUTSIDE the universe??
Spot on. I've tried geetting across to KM that causality is only something that happens within the universe, and cannot, therefore, be something that happens [b]to the universe, but he refuses to accept it because it undermines his argument.[/b]
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterI suggest you re-read your first post; your claim was that God had no beginning, not that the concept of something eternal didn''t have a beginning (who would argue with that?). If all you're saying is that eternity doesn't have a beginning, you're right. Now all you have to do is show "logically" that something is eternal and you're all set.
Nope....it's past you by that one ..did I say eternity was 'something from nothing'...can I clarify again ( and again and again) Eternity ALWAYS HAS BEEN ..therefore does not have to 'come from' anything. Only things that have beginnings have to 'come from' somewhere. You have yet to understand the true definition of eternity which is why I started th ...[text shortened]... h you are sitting on. Are you saying you want me to be less logical....curious?!?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would prefer saying that causality is sometimes a property of this universe (whether or not it exists outside I don't know).
Spot on. I've tried geetting across to KM that causality is only something that happens within the universe, and cannot, therefore, be something that happens [b]to the universe, but he refuses to accept it because it undermines his argument.[/b]
The important thing to recognize is that we can't know anything about before the universe and it is meaningless to speculate about things before it (I think thats the crux of your argument)
13 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KAgain, I'm not so sure about this.
I would prefer saying that causality is sometimes a property of this universe (whether or not it exists outside I don't know).
The important thing to recognize is that we can't know anything about before the universe and it is meaningless to speculate about things before it (I think thats the crux of your argument)
I think it's dangerous to discount the possibility of us determining knowledge about something that is, at present, unexplainable.
Currently we don't know anything about events that might have occured 'outside' or 'before' the universe (and I use these terms knowing that they give rise to problems over their definitions).
That doesn't mean that we can't know anything about such events or can never know anything about such events.
I would suggest that there are lines of inquiry today that point to possibilities for discovering some of these things. The reality is, tell someone that something is impossible and they'll probably try to make a fool of you. Scientists have done this many times.