foundations of reason

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort?.…

No.

…(whether "in time" or not)…

Neither!; there is no point in time where “nothing” exists AND there is no point in time when something once existed or is currently existing which is “outside” time -I hope that you can see how thi ...[text shortened]... n what is the premise for you belief that the beginning of time must have a “cause”?[/b]

KM…...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort?.…

"No".----Hammy


-----------------------------------------------------------------

...so therefore existence has always been around and is without beginning or end?

Originally posted by twhitehead
1. a. Knightmeister has argued that any event is necessarily the effect of a prior event in infinite cause-event chains.
b. I asked him if this applied to free will choices and his answer was in the negative.
He contradicted his own claim.

2. a. Knightmeister has argued that the time dimension is necessarily infinite.
b. He later said "I don't belie ...[text shortened]... mpossible to understand.
3. The above doesn't have to make any sense as God is illogical.

2. a. Knightmeister has argued that the time dimension is necessarily infinite.
b. He later said "I don't believe that the Universe is without origins".
He contradicted his own claim.

------------------whitey-------------------

I can see how you might think this but the contradiction you perceive is based on your own assumptions about the implications of my statements.

I am arguing in the continuity of existence (whether within time or not) . I see no reason to assume that existence has to be time based per se. I do believe that the Universe had origins but I don't neccessarily believe that the start of the universe is the start of "all time."

All we know is that the space/time that we live in in this universe began 12 billion years ago. That's all. Anything beyond this is guess work. We do not know if there is a "before" or not , and yet yourself and hammy insist on saying there can be no such thing.

I thinkl both you and hammy are reifying time into something much grander than it is. So much of your argument depends on "time". But you cannot say what it is or how time came to be.

Originally posted by knightmeister
KM…...but you do believe in the non-existence of existence itself as a "reality" of some sort?.…

"No".----Hammy


-----------------------------------------------------------------

...so therefore existence has always been around and is without beginning or end?

?

How does it logically follow from the proposition:

1, “the non-existence of existence itself has no "reality" of any sort”

That:

2, “therefore existence has always been around and is without beginning or end”

?

Please explain your logic.
-Everything that exists does so at a point in time and time had a beginning.

And exactly what do you mean by “existence has always been around” in 2, ?
-do you mean that everything that existed does so at a point in time?
-or do you mean that at every point in time something existed?
-neither of these two propositions above would logically contradict the notion that time had a beginning.

Originally posted by jaywill
Thanks.

Where is your reply to the [b]initial argument on page one of this discussion posed by Knightmeister?

Which post of yours best represents your answer to his opening remarks about the foundations of reason for a supposed randomly governed universe ?[/b]

I don't know if I did reply to that post directly as the post is not very clear and many of the concepts it depends on are unclear or disputed.
What does he mean by "hard determinist"? If I was to guess, I would think that he meant someone who believe that every effect is the result of a cause or set of causes. But that contradicts later statements about randomness.

Until I know whether or not I am a "hard determinist" I don't know whether the post applies to me at all.

He also sets up a false dichotomy by dividing all people into either Theists or an "Atheist who doesn't believe in free will (hard determinist)"

Lastly, the whole idea that logic necessarily stems from randomness in a universe in which randomness plays a key role, is complete and utter rubbish.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know if I did reply to that post directly as the post is not very clear and many of the concepts it depends on are unclear or disputed.
What does he mean by "hard determinist"? If I was to guess, I would think that he meant someone who believe that every effect is the result of a cause or set of causes. But that contradicts later statements about ness in a universe in which randomness plays a key role, is complete and utter rubbish.

=========================================
Lastly, the whole idea that logic necessarily stems from randomness in a universe in which randomness plays a key role, is complete and utter rubbish.
=====================================

Unless this was a typo, I didn't see this idea put forth at all.

What I recall is that he questioned - what is the atheist's foundation for reason in a undesigned universe randomly thrown together?

Ie, there is no design logic to the universe ? Okay then how can you trust your own athiestic "logic" to understand a logic-less, undesigned, random universe?

He's not the first to ask the question. I think it is a good question.

Now I did not read all remarks. I read about 8 pages of remarks and I can't see where the question was tackled. What I do see is a lot of branching off into other disputes.

If someone directly replied they can direct me to the reply. If your brain and mind are thrown together randomly without design of any intelligence, where do you come off with trust in the foundation of reason for correctly analyzing the nature of the universe ?

I think that is the question. Sides shows into quantum physics, dimensions and the nature of infinity and time, kind of distract from the initial question, as interesting as they may be.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
-simply because the universe began as such a tiny particle that, just like all tiny particles, its behaviour must have been at least partly governed by quantum physics albeit for about a billionth of a second because, as I already said, quantum physics is the physics is the physics of the very small.
But it didn’t stay that small for very long (les ...[text shortened]... the larger something is, the less influence and relevance quantum physics has on its behaviour.

========================================
-simply because the universe began as such a tiny particle that, just like all tiny particles, its behaviour must have been at least partly governed by quantum physics albeit for about a billionth of a second because, as I already said, quantum physics is the physics is the physics of the very small.
But it didn’t stay that small for very long (less than a billionth of a second) and it quickly expanded to a large-scale structure and, as I have already said, it is not a requirement of quantum mechanics to explain the continual existence of large-scale structures because it has no relevance to large scale structures.
Does that answer both your questions?

As a generalisation; the larger something is, the less influence and relevance quantum physics has on its behaviour
========================================

I hate to distract from the initial question posed in this thread.

But thanks for your answer as to why Quantum Physics comes up in discussions of spiritual nature about the creation or origin of the universe.

The problem I do have with your explanation is that you explain why and then follow on to say that it really isn't relevant. The point of this ultimate "super microscopic" point of the singularity of the universe is that EVERYTHING was contained therein.

It appears that for you the references to Quantum Physics are a useful alternative to a transcendent Intelligent Creator, then you discard it quickly as you have.

Now is your Quantum Physics relevant to the origin cause of the existence of everything or not ?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
-simply because the universe began as such a tiny particle that, just like all tiny particles, its behaviour must have been at least partly governed by quantum physics albeit for about a billionth of a second because, as I already said, quantum physics is the physics is the physics of the very small.
But it didn is your Quantum Physics relevant to the origin cause of the existence of everything or not ?

…The problem I do have with your explanation is that you explain why and then follow on to say that it really isn't relevant... …[/b]

Nop. I explained very clearly why it IS relevant when the universe was small but then ceased to be relevant the moment the universe became large.

…The point of this ultimate "super microscopic" point of the singularity of the universe is that EVERYTHING was contained therein. . .…

-and for about a billionth of a second all that “everything” was very small -but not for long.

… Now is your Quantum Physics relevant to the origin CAUSE of the existence of everything or not ?.. … (my emphasis)

Existence of the universe doesn’t have a “CAUSE ” -your question assumes something that is not so.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The problem I do have with your explanation is that you explain why and then follow on to say that it really isn't relevant... …[/b]

Nop. I explained very clearly why it IS relevant when the universe was small but then ceased to be relevant the moment the universe became large.

…The point of this ultimate "super microscopic" point o ...[text shortened]... ence of the universe doesn’t have a “CAUSE ” -your question assumes something that is not so.

====================================
Existence of the universe doesn’t have a “CAUSE ” -your question assumes something that is not so.
=============================================

Well Andrew, that is a nice assertion. I could even call it a statement of "faith."

You catagorically declare to the world "Existence of the universe doesn't have a cause."

Well, you can state that as an article of faith. I believe another article of faith which says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

I do not see that you KNOW scientifically or otherwise that the existence of the universe has no CAUSE. I see that as your belief.. And I can respect that as your belief and as a tenet of your world view or philosophy.

You do not know with any mathematical certainty that which is your tenet of belief - "The existence of the univese has no cause."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Existence of the universe doesn’t have a “CAUSE ” -your question assumes something that is not so.
=============================================

Well Andrew, that is a nice assertion. I could even call it a statement of "faith."

You catagorically declare to the world "Existence of the universe doesn at which is your tenet of belief - [b]"The existence of the univese has no cause." [/b]

…Well Andrew, that is a nice assertion. I could even call it a statement of "faith." …[/b]

Nop, not "faith " But “science”.

…You categorically declare to the world "Existence of the universe doesn't have a cause."

Well, you can state that as an article of faith.
. . .…

Science says that time began at the big-bang thus science says there was no “before” the big bang and thus nothing could have “caused” the big-bang (because a “cause” must come “before” its effect) thus it is not “faith” but “science”.

Thus I do "know" scientifically that the existence of the universe has no “cause“.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Well Andrew, that is a nice assertion. I could even call it a statement of "faith." …[/b]

Nop, not "faith " But “science”.

…You categorically declare to the world "Existence of the universe doesn't have a cause."

Well, you can state that as an article of faith.
. . .…

Science says that time began at the big-bang thus sci ...[text shortened]...

Thus I do "know" scientifically that the existence of the universe has no “cause“.[/b]

=========================================
Science says that time began at the big-bang thus science says there was no “before” the big bang and thus nothing could have “caused” the big-bang (because a “cause” must come “before” its effect) thus it is not “faith” but “science”.
=========================================

What major cosmologists or astronomers have stated catagorically that they know that science proves that the universe came into existence without a cause ?

If the scientific proof that the universe came into being without a cause has been available since the discovery of evidence of a "Big Bang" why was Einstien bothered by the discovery? Why didn't he simply immediately come to the conclusion that the universe must have come into existence without a cause?

I don't have enough faith to believe that something can arise from nothing with no cause.


=====================================
Thus I do "know" scientifically that the existence of the universe has no “cause“.
=====================================

I think such an attitude is actually antagonistic to science. I think it gives science a bad name.

I don't think you are doing a favor to science by claiming that you know the universe came into existence uncaused.

You believe in a miracle with no cause. I believe in a miracle caused by God.

Originally posted by jaywill
Unless this was a typo, I didn't see this idea put forth at all.

What I recall is that he questioned - what is the atheist's foundation for reason in a undesigned universe randomly thrown together?

Ie, there is no design logic to the universe ? Okay then how can you trust your own athiestic "logic" to understand a logic-less, undesigned, random universe?

You are making exactly the same 'complete and utter rubbish' equivalence that he is. Just because a universe was not designed in no way leads to the conclusion that the universe is without logic. It is obvious that you and knighmeister are devoid of logic, but the universe most certainly is not.

He's not the first to ask the question. I think it is a good question.
It is a nonsensical question as it relies on an obviously false premise. If the universe is logic-less then there is no point asking the question. It is as nonsensical as knighmeisters typical thread in which he tries to make a logical argument, fails, then announces that since God is illogical, there is no need for logic at all.

Now I did not read all remarks. I read about 8 pages of remarks and I can't see where the question was tackled. What I do see is a lot of branching off into other disputes.
That is because the basic questions were based on false premises - so they were tackled instead. If I asked you why Jesus wrote the Bible in Old English would you 'tackle' it?

If someone directly replied they can direct me to the reply. If your brain and mind are thrown together randomly without design of any intelligence, where do you come off with trust in the foundation of reason for correctly analyzing the nature of the universe ?
I simply do not see a connection between how my brain was designed or not designed should affect whether or not I can trust my reasoning. Your claim that there is a connection leads to the obvious paradox, that you too should not trust your reasoning, as you cannot possibly know whether or not your brain was designed by God until you first trust your reasoning.

I think that is the question. Sides shows into quantum physics, dimensions and the nature of infinity and time, kind of distract from the initial question, as interesting as they may be.
You would be incorrect.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=========================================
Science says that time began at the big-bang thus science says there was no “before” the big bang and thus nothing could have “caused” the big-bang (because a “cause” must come “before” its effect) thus it is not “faith” but “science”.
=========================================

What major cosmologists

You believe in a miracle with no cause. I believe in a miracle caused by God.[/b]

…What major cosmologists or astronomers have stated categorically that they know that science proves that the universe came into existence without a cause ?
.. . .…

I don’t recall any specific person stating that but it doesn’t change the fact that main-stream cosmology implies this for the reasons I have just given.

… If the scientific proof that the universe came into being without a cause has been available since the discovery of evidence of a "Big Bang" why was Einstein bothered by the discovery? Why didn't he simply immediately come to the conclusion that the universe must have come into existence without a cause? . …

-because nobody is perfect.
-because even scientists are human.

… I don't have enough faith to believe that something can arise from NOTHING with no cause. . .…(my emphasis)

The universe didn’t come from “NOTHING”
-given the fact that time was supposed to begin at the big-bang and given the fact that there was no “before” the big-bang, exactly at what point in time did this "NOTHING” exist?

…You believe in a miracle with no cause..…

Define “miracle”. I don’t think I believe in “miracles”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…What major cosmologists or astronomers have stated categorically that they know that science proves that the universe came into existence without a cause ?
.. . .…

I don’t recall any specific person stating that but it doesn’t change the fact that main-stream cosmology implies this for the reasons I have just given.

… If the scient ...[text shortened]... a miracle with no cause..…

Define “miracle”. I don’t think I believe in “miracles”.[/b]

=======================================
I don’t recall any specific person stating that but it doesn’t change the fact that main-stream cosmology implies this for the reasons I have just given.
=========================================

Then you may be an innovative thinker. But that would indicate that your reasoning is more along the line of philosophizing rather than stating a peer reviewed scientific axiom agreed upon by cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers, not just "people".

You really do not know if they agree with you for the most part.What is stopping you from submitting your claim to a science journal for peer review? Isn't that what the Darwinists complain about concerning advocates of non-Darwinian theories?

Why don't you submit your scientific discovery to be peer reviewed by major cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers?

=====================================

… If the scientific proof that the universe came into being without a cause has been available since the discovery of evidence of a "Big Bang" why was Einstein bothered by the discovery? Why didn't he simply immediately come to the conclusion that the universe must have come into existence without a cause? . …

-because nobody is perfect.
=============================================

Are you saying that those who agree with you in this matter are at least a little more leaning towards perfection ?

Since no one is perfect, we will have to allow for the possibility that you are neither perfect and really are mistaken. Science has NOT proved that the universe came about uncaused. No one is perfect. Maybe you're completely in error?

You know maybe the idea of Big Bang will one day be questioned as well. With science you have to remain a little open minded to what future intelligent researches will come up with.

Either way, to me, Big Bang or no Big Bang I believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

==============================
-because even scientists are human.
================================

And you are also human and may be in error. As well, I know I am human and can be in error.

Of course I understand by faith that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". I do not claim to know that as mathematically demonstrated science fact.

I have to go now. Maybe we'll talk latter.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I am arguing in the continuity of existence (whether within time or not) . I see no reason to assume that existence has to be time based per se. I do believe that the Universe had origins but I don't neccessarily believe that the start of the universe is the start of "all time."

You are either arguing that time is infinite in all directions, or that it is discontinuous. Which one is it, because you tend to get very vague at that point.

All we know is that the space/time that we live in in this universe began 12 billion years ago.
No, as I have repeatedly said, we do not know that. We do hypothesize that as a possibility but it is by no means a 'known fact'.

That's all. Anything beyond this is guess work.
If the time dimension is 12 billion years long in the past, then there is no 'beyond'. I have tried to explain to you that the existence of a boundary on a dimension does not prove the existence of a beyond but you start avoiding me when I go down that route.

We do not know if there is a "before" or not , and yet yourself and hammy insist on saying there can be no such thing.
If time is bounded at that point then there is no such thing by definition. It is indisputable. To even talk about a 'before' is rendered meaningless. It is not a matter of whether or not we 'know' anything about it, but rather it is a matter of whether or not the discussion is meaningful. Do you know whether or not there is an island further south than the south pole along the Greenwhich Meridian? Would you consult a map? Do you need to consult a map? Is it necessary to know whether there are any islands in the vicinity in order to answer the question?

Yes I know you put your 'before' in quotes, but you make it quite clear nevertheless that you still want to place it on the time dimension.

I thinkl both you and hammy are reifying time into something much grander than it is. So much of your argument depends on "time". But you cannot say what it is or how time came to be.
No it is you that is reifying it into something much grander than it is. You cant handle the possibility that it is finite.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=======================================
I don’t recall any specific person stating that but it doesn’t change the fact that main-stream cosmology implies this for the reasons I have just given.
=========================================

Then you may be an innovative thinker. But that would indicate that your reasoning is more along the line of matically demonstrated science fact.

I have to go now. Maybe we'll talk latter.[/b]

…You really do not know if they agree with you for the most part.
.. . .…

Given the fact that main-stream cosmology implies that the universe doesn’t not have a “cause”, I assume they would generally agree with that! -it would be a bit strange if they didn’t! -I mean scientists usually agree with what their own science tells them is true -yes.

… What is stopping you from submitting your claim to a science journal for peer review? . …

-because, for a start, that has already been done by others -it is called the big-bang theory and I am sure it has been quoted in science journals for peer review.

… Are you saying that those who agree with you in this matter are at least a little more leaning towards perfection ? . .…

Nop.

…Since no one is perfect, we will have to allow for the possibility that you are neither perfect and really are mistaken. ..…

Possibly yes -can you administrate by logical argument that I am or even that I probably am mistaken on this specific matter?

… Science has NOT proved that the universe came about uncaused. .…

You have obviously misunderstood the implications of the big-bang theory.

…You know maybe the idea of Big Bang will one day be questioned as well.…

It has already been continually question and so far survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny -there is no reason to believe that it wouldn’t continue to do so just like there no reason to believe that the theory that the world is round and not flat wouldn’t continue to survived the test of time and scientific scrutiny.