Here's what I don't get about this argument. It sets out to prove that nothing can be infinite and everything needs a cause, and illustrates how the universe would need both a beginning and a cause. So to solve this problem, they say, well, it was created by a beginningless causeless being. Does this strike anybody else as a bit odd? Also, why couldn't nature have existed in a beginningless causeless state until the universe was caused to exist? This is a fairly weak argument in my opinion.
The Cosmological Argument is absolutely unconvincing.
Premise: All causes lead to their respective effects
Premise 2: All effects are preceded by their respective causes.
It is these two premises that allowed us to trace causality backwards and form a chain of logic that apparently led to the point of inferring the ‘first cause’. To assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above.
CONTRADICTION!!!
Read more at voxmentis(dot)com/2011/04/comparison-of-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
@anticorncob6 You are correct but with the design of the universe and the idea that all design has a designer, this proves that there must be some designer of the universe. Right? There must be a supreme being because how else could the universe have obtained its design without a designer?
@anticorncob6 The energy is finite and the vacuum has not been proven to be infinite, so there is a chance that the vacuum could be finite which would bring up a problem. Something finite cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, there is a possibility that if the vacuum is finite, there must be some infinite power that brought it into existence.
@CarlosMarti123 Yes, all claims of god need an explanation given the dubious mythological base from which all known god notions arise.
The only thing that can be said of the principles of logic to the extent that we understand it - is simply that it works. What explains the totality of existence? We don't know. Yes, we could make up all kinds of stuff that fits within the limits of what we currently know, however, could we really call it the truth - given that it is based on our ignorance?
@MyContext “Yes, all claims of god need an explanation given the dubious mythological base from which all known god notions arise.”
That's simply committing the genetic fallacy.
skepticalchristian(.)com/evolutionofbelief(.)htm
“The only thing that can be said of the principles of logic to the extent that we understand it - is simply that it works. What explains the totality of existence?”
If God is the best explanation for the available information, then what's your objection?
@CarlosMarti123 The genetic fallacy does not apply. If I had used the claim of one thing to discredit another thing, you would have a point. I am saying the thing in question is flawed from inception. All claims of god of which I am aware are based on mythologies. If we had evidence for god, my claims would be pointless. Check out user EVID3NC3 (history of god) for a summary of the mythology as known. Please check out the replies as well...
@MyContext Given that god as presented is mythology. One could postulate the idea of a god, but not on the basis of the mythology, since, it (the god concept) was just sociological notions of what people did not understand which grew over time into various religions. The term god could be redefined to mean - things that we do not currently understand.
@CarlosMarti123 If we claimed god from a deist perspective, it would be an acceptable filler. The best answer is honestly - We do not know. Which further means, we could study it until we have exhausted our options for exploring the explorable possibilities or we actually get the answer or just give up.
Yes, you are right that some people just want an answer even if it is wrong. However, bad answers corrupt our ability to make good decisions, since, it amounts to false information.
if you had one cd that had a infinite amount of music on it why would you need a infinite cd collection? because you would have infinite music so infinite cd collection would just take up a infinite amount of space.
So if actual infinites don't exist, an infinite god is not actual.
An abstract god can't manipulate actual material.
This argument is so weak! Even if all premisses were right - which they are not - it would only suggest a super-natural being. Where is the proof this is what some humans call a god or even more so a Muslim or Zoroastrian god?
1. So if actual infinites don't exist, an infinite god is not actual.
2. An abstract god can't manipulate actual material.
3. Even if all premisses were right - which they are not - it would only suggest a super-natural being. Where is the proof this is what some humans call a god or even more so a Muslim or Zoroastrian god?
As hard as you tried, you still haven't proven that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
Just because it is impossible to imagine does not make it so. It is actually quite understood mathematically that we could have an infinitely old universe, if we assume higher dimensions. The fourth dimension (time), along with our 3 spacial dimensions can easily be folded to a loop within the fifth, the same way we can bend a 2d playing card thru the 3rd to make an infinite loop.
@M1sterE321 ["Even if he did not need a cause to exist, then one must ask why any person can assume the Universe needed a cause to exist. No one can say for sure."]
Because that's what the argument deduces, you cant accept the premises and then say it doesnt follow unless you show the argument is invalid, if something is demonstrated, it is true regardless if we can explain its existence. Asking a question doesnt negate the truth value of a deduction.
the fatal flaw in the arguement is that things can 'only come into existence via an act of will' even a breif moment of reflection will show this to be fallacious
@whitesquirrel7 I thought this too. I can imagine someone hanging out up there in the 5th dimension, spilling their cup of tea and accidentally causing the universe.
It's inevitably going to be a lethal flaw in this argument to presume that all things must have a cause, even with the slippery "Kalam" expedient of "all things that begin to exist" -- because if the universe began to exist then time began to exist and there could be no causality without time which means that causality itself as a phenomenon must have begun to exist just as other physical processes like gravity began to exist.
But to require that "causality" must have had a cause is absurd.
Four common reasons why I think there is no god; A) Total absence from the natural world. No sign of a god, before, during or after, natural disastres B) The absolute absence of favoritism towards believers. Even churches need lightning-rods to protect them from god. C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. C) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept that the guilty must suffer, but children ???
Similarly (but not the same) I can “prove” to you that you cannot walk even one meter: to walk one meter you must first walk half a meter, then half of half a meter and so on and so forth *infinitely* number of times. Actually you will not be able to move at all – since the same hold for any distance > 0.
This is known as Zeno paradox, and in fact it is a false paradox – a clever play with the *intuitive* term ‘infinite’. (4/4)
The second part about time can be summarized as: If A exists infinite time than we cannot reach time B since there was infinite time before that. Replace A with ‘universe’, and B with ‘now’, and you get the claim. However, you can also replace A with God and B with the creation (about 5000 years ago according to the bible) and you end up with *exactly* the same argument, God could not have created the world 5000 years ago – because there was infinite time before that.
Now are there more even natural number of natural numbers? The answer is that there are *the same* number because the can be matched: number N matches even number 2*N. *NOT* because they are both infinite – both real numbers and natural numbers are infinite – yet there are many more real number than infinite numbers – the cannot be matched in any way – proof exists in any mathematic book on Sets. Therefore the first part of the discussion is simply wrong. (2/4)
The discussion of infinite is due to lack of knowledge about Sets in mathematics that did not exist when the argument was formed. For example if there are two set, say a group of boys and a group of girls – they are of the same size, of course, if you can count the number of boys and girls and find them equal. But also if you can match boys and girls without leaving any boy or any girl alone – that too say that that both group have the same size
The creator god, one day , stepped out of the void, said ' POOF' and lo and behold; there was the whole universe. with all it`s galaxies, each with billions of stars, all billions of light years from each other. And all that in a nano second. What a great god !!!!!!!
@Hufflewaffle "Nothing exists outside the universe otherwise it would not be a universe." What have you been smoking? The universe is OUR universe, many theories posit that there may be other universes, what does that mean to you? Obviously your definition of universe differs from the one used by cosmologists. Also, your argument shows the hidden presumption that only physical things can exist which is provably false e.g. concept of fairies is a real unphysical concept whether true or not.
This video ignores one thing. What/who created god? If this "god" created the universe, then there must have been a time before the universe during which god existed, but the universe didn't. So what was there before god created the universe? Just god? Who made him? But god is not material. So there would have been nothing. And, according to the law of the conservation of mass, if there was nothing but this immaterial object then nothing material could have been created.
@xXsharppshooterXx "And, according to the law of the conservation of mass, if there was nothing but this immaterial object then nothing material could have been created." what's to stop an unphysical being creating something unphysical and then changing its properties such that at the end of the process it is physical? Only after the process, when it exists, is it bound by that or any laws of physics.
You now realize that the cosmological argument completely ignores one major tenet of physics, the conservation of energy, to place undue emphasis on another, causality.
"ignores one major tenet of physics, the conservation of energy."
Cosmological argument can be made based on energy conservation:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it exists. Therefore either it always existed or it was created. The property of always existing is unphysical so you have to treat the universe as a whole as a supernatural entity, thus it could have many non-physical properties. Or it was created by an entity not bound by the laws of physics.
No, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" is a law which is applicable to pysical energy in the universe, nothing more or less. This is why the origin must have operated outside of these laws. For example creating something unphysical and modifying its properties so that it became a physical thing. The laws would only apply once the process of giving it physical properties is complete
utlimately we make our decisions based on our own experiences, and our own viewpoint, an atheist is an atheist because they want to, 90% of the time due to unpleaseant association with christians, muslims, etc. or just from feeling pleasure in simplicity, and christians/muslims etc are the way they are bc they feel a sense of peace from it, either lifestyle is fine, thats the beauty of free will, but an atheist doesnt have the right to criticize anyone bc of their beliefs, when they have none
"but an atheist doesnt have the right to criticize anyone bc of their beliefs, when they have none" I don't see why having 'none' (everyone must have beliefs to function) forfeits their ability to criticize the logic or resulting actions of a belief system. Criticism is inherent in critical analysis for obvious reasons, it is required for finding a solid logical foundation from which one makes their choices in life. This criticism is necessary *because* beliefs are so important.
@MrMonkeyspanner when based on the question such as how the universe begain, what happens when we die, questions that cannot be answered by the sci method and are outside the emperical realm, thier beliefs are forefited because their beliefs yeild no answer and as for a solid logical foundation for choices in life, life is not meant to be logical, nobody chooses their religious beliefs because of logic, but thats a diff. convo all together
@mustanglp50 "nobody chooses their religious beliefs because of logic" I have only ever chosen my religious beliefs because of logic. Logic initially led me from Christianity I grew up with to Atheism. Faulty logic led be to Islam, having been a practicing muslim I discovered my logic and am now a monotheist where I stay because I can find and have been shown no faulty logic in my beliefs as a monotheist.
@mustanglp50 "thier beliefs are forefited because their beliefs yeild no answer" This is simply not true, the beliefs are the premises from which conclusions are drawn, if these conclusions satisfy the question then they yeild answers to the questions.
@mustanglp50 "questions that cannot be answered by the sci method and are outside the emperical realm," Being outside the empirical realm does not mean that the truth of them cannot be confirmed. That modular forms can be used to prove Fermat's last theorem has nothing to do with empirical evidence. Only a small, narrow fraction of available truths can be proved with empirical evidence, since the concept is only applicable to a small fraction of truths.
An uncaused cause is like the square root of a negative number. It can come in handy when you need to solve an abstract problem, but you have to remember - they don't actually exist.
So what is more probable, that something that can't exist created the universe or a naturally occurring phenomena that we don't know about yet is responsible?
@tiggster13 Typical question begging from an atheist concerning his irrational Naturalism. Either something has a natural physical explanation or it doesn't exist right? I guess the Laws of Logic don't exist since they are independent of nature transcending it. I also love the typical argument from ignorance projected from a Naturalist such as yourself using the Naturalism of Gaps. The problem isn't one of ignorance, but one of impossibility for Naturalism.
@tiggster13 Because I presented an argument you can't refute its turns into an ad hominem attack? Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is? Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Everything that is natural or physical must have a cause is the premise. I'm talking about the Laws themselves. I find it odd seeing you say they are conceptual, absolute, and unchanging. The only mind that can house absolute and unchanging conceptual Laws is an absolute and unchanging mind aka God.
@JesusforLife2 When did I say the laws were conceptual, absolute and unchanging? The concept of logic is conceptual and, therefore, neither absolute nor unchanging.
Now, the only question you asked was, "Either something has a natural physical explanation or it doesn't exist right?" My answer: I know of nothing that exists that can't have a natural physical explanation.
Please provide an example of something that exists that cannot have a natural physical explanation.
@tiggster13 So the Laws of Logic aren't absolute and unchanging? Are you absolutely sure about that? The Laws, if you haven't noticed, are prescriptive. They shape physical reality. The natural universe is subject to obey these Laws. The Laws aren't dependent upon space, time, or matter. They are not part of nature. Beautiful strawman accusing me of using the God of Gaps when you use your Naturalism of Gaps. Sorry, the non-natural Laws of Logic destroy your irrational Naturalism.
@JesusforLife2 You're confusing the concept of logic with the principles of reality that they are based on. These principles are very likely absolute and unchanging but they are not conceptual. Its like confusing a photo of a person with the person, they may look the same but they are not.
These 'laws' don't shape reality, they are properties of reality as well as time space and matter and the universe does not "obey" them.
When you gonna answer my questions, you hypocrite?
@tigg They do shape reality. The natural universe consists of time, space, and matter. These Laws are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. They are non-natural or supernatural. To assert they are properties of the natural universe is illogical. Since the natural universe is changing matter in motion, how are absolute and unchanging laws derived from this? They still exist even if matter didnt. If they are dependent on matter and aren't obeyed, name one instance where these Laws have been broken.
@JesusforLife2 An egg is an egg. It is also not, not an egg. If you turn the egg into an omelet it is now an omelet and it is not, not an omelet. Matter can change and move all it wants to, it has absolutely no bearing on the logic properties of reality.
And the only laws that are derived from the motion and changing of matter are the conceptual ideas I spoke of earlier; and these are neither absolute nor unchanging.
@tiggster13 Guess what happens while matter changes, the Laws do not. Thanks for proving the Laws aren't dependent upon matter with your example, but vice-versa and even saying so. There you go falling back to concepts, im talking about the Laws themselves. So your answer is "They just are". Question begging/circular logic at its finest. Well, God exists because "He just does". Matter is forced to act in accordance with the Laws, if you are going to assert otherwise, prove where matter doesnt.
@JfL2 "Thanks for proving the Laws aren't dependent upon matter with your example,". Strawman, I never said that were dependent.
"So your answer is "They just are"". Strawman again. I've explained this, but you don't have the guts to address it.
"Matter is forced to act in accordance with the Laws" To use the phrase "is forced to" implies an outside agent and begs your question. Matter does act in accordance with logic but only because 'logical' is the way we describe how matter acts.
@tig So the Laws aren't derived from Matter? Thanks for destroying your own argument. You didn't explain anything all you said was "Nor do they have any authority. They just are." then go on to say "Matter does act in accordance with logic". Paradox? It doesn't matter how we "describe it". If we didn't exist, these Laws still do and still force matter to obey them. I said nothing about a Deity nor am I implying one. This is about the Laws not being Natural which destroys your foolish Naturalism.
@JesusforLife2 We derive the concepts of logic by examining the properties of reality. Quit trying to confuse this issue by quote mining my statements.
And what about those questions I asked you? You have neither the guts nor the honesty to confront them.
@tiggster13 Not true. We derive the Laws of Nature/Physics from observing matter since they deal with actions. The Laws of Logic deals with conceptual truth statements. By using your logic, then Quantum Mechanics prove the Laws aren't absolute since we observe an electron acting as a particle and a wave. If you are trying to say we discover the Laws of Logic, I agree. The only way the Laws of Logic are part of nature is if they are not absolute. Are you willing to commit intellectual suicide?
@JesusforLife2 Does quantum mechanics show that matter acts illogically or does it show that there's till a lot we don't understand about the way that sub-atomic particles work? Either way, didn't say that these laws were absolute, I said they might be absolute - only an omniscient being could really know for sure.
You can twist the facts all you want but you're never going to make it possible for an impossible being to exist.
@t The point was we don't derive the Laws of Logic from matter. They are a-priori knowledge. We know them innately and project them upon what we observe. Wait so the Laws "might" be absolute? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously going to dive into irrationality and claim the Laws might not be absolute? Do you even know the ramifications of what you just said? When you start questioning the Law of Non-Contradiction, you are contradicting yourself. Irrational Athiesm, sin is corrupting your mind.
@JesusforLife2 "The point was we don't derive the Laws of Logic from matter. They are a-priori knowledge. We know them innately and project them upon what we observe." So if we stopped thinking these laws were true reality would change - yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Right the laws might be absolute just like you might be an asshole. All we know about is our little corner of reality. To assert that our experiences must bebut perfectly accurate and universal is arrogant and short sighted.
@tiggst Nice straw-man, quote me where I said the Laws were dependent on our minds. What I said was how we know them. So you have no absolute standard for truth not even knowing if the Laws are absolute. That means truth and rationality doesn't exist. You essentially destroyed yourself in this argument. To claim the Laws might not be absolute is not only foolish and irrational, but self-defeating as you continue to appeal to them as if they are absolute. Thanks for showing your illogical Atheism
@ti Here is the result of cornering a religious atheist and his illogical self-refuting beliefs he won't let go, he whips out the personal insults and ad hominem attacks. No surprise seeing as this atheist was allready doing that in every post. You have broken God's Law of the 10 commandments and will be going to hell sinner. God loves you and desires you not to perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly died for you and only requires repentance and faith. God bless your filthy heart.
"Jesus willingly died for you and only requires repentance and faith."
So God put himself through a painful experience (if He kept in the pain) knowing full well he would actually be having a 2 day sleep and wake up again before he goes off to have a party in heaven and that's supposed to be a great sacrifice? People have made greater sacrifices for lesser causes. The whole thing is like a 'protection racket' if you pay (give faith) you won't get hurt, otherwise bad things...
@tiggster13 "To assert that our experiences must bebut perfectly accurate and universal is arrogant and short sighted." I don't understand how you can know this and yet claim that God is impossible.
@MrMonkeyspanner Well, it depends on which god we're talking about. The only gods that I would consider to be impossible are those that are defined in such a way as to be impossible.
@JesusforLife2 Now, you dishonest little dimwit, are you going to stop pretending to have a valid position on this issue, or would you, instead, man up and answer my questions?
@JesusforLife2 "project them upon what we observe." Not project on to, they happen to be all we have to understand observations. If logic is not relevant to something we can't understand that thing, thus cannot accurately reason with that concept. To do so would enable you to 'prove' anything including contradictions (see e.g. Russel) and nullify all resulting use of logic.
"going to dive into irrationality" Surely you've already dived there by accepting something is true without logic.
@tiggster13 "You can twist the facts all you want but you're never going to make it possible for an impossible being to exist."
What makes you claim that such a being is impossible? What is your definition of impossible? What defines what is possible? Do you think not possible within this universe defines impossible in an absolute sense? Then how come abstract things which require no universe to exist are possible (or do you deny the possibility of an abstract concept?!)
@MrMonkeyspanner First, any sort of concept is possible (that's what makes imaginary things so neat).
Now, we need to differential between what I perceive as impossible and what objectively is impossible and note that, due to the fact that I'm limited in what I can perceive, I cannot tell one from the other (to me, what I see as impossible is objectively impossible) Could I be wrong? Absolutely. (I'd be surprised if I wasn't) But, until the impossible happens I can't know where I'm wrong.
@tiggster13 "Now, we need to differential between what I perceive as impossible and what objectively is impossible and note that, due to the fact that I'm limited in what I can perceive, I cannot tell one from the other "
Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations, only a limit in the *logic* you can perceive limits your ability to determine the possibility or impossibility of a concept.
@MrMonkeyspanner "Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations". I never said that they did. I was talking about my observations which would be subjective in nature, not objective.
"only a limit in the *logic* you can perceive limits your ability to determine the possibility or impossibility of a concept." No, we are limited by much more than that.
@tiggster13 ""Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations". I never said that they did." To clarify, I was not claiming you said that, I was claiming something myself. What I meant was that in order to objectively show that something is impossible you can use more than objective observations, you can also use logic and if the logic implies a contradiction with objective 'truths' or within the proposition in question, *then* you can say it is objectively 'impossible'.
@tiggster13 "I was talking about my observations which would be subjective in nature, not objective." Well, the direct observations would be subjective, however it is possible for people to determine objective truths from a set of subjective observations.
"No, we are limited by much more than that." I disagree, I hold that logic, independent of anything else, can determine the possibility or impossibility of any thing which is sufficiently accurately representable with logic.
@tiggster13 "Well, be sure to let me know if you ever find such a thing." I presume you are referring to something which is accurately representable by logic? Well, I think qualities of physical things can be accurately represented, even if the full set of all qualities that could describe a thing are known that does not guarantee that everything about it is known. Modular forms and Fermat's last theorem are perfectly accurately representable by logic.
@MrMonkeyspanner "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Einstein.
I think the same can be said for abstract concepts.
@tiggster13 "I think the same can be said for abstract concepts." I think saying the same for abstract concepts produces a contradiction:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to abstract concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to abstract concepts. -tiggster13 :-P
maths subset abstract so:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to mathematical concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to mathematical concepts.
I did not mean, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to abstract concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to abstract concepts."
I meant, "As far as the abstract concepts refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
@tiggster13 "Did you really not understand what I meant?" I see, sorry, I took it the other way!
Yes, I understand that position and I still have some issue with it. "I perceive an (imperfect) square" is a statement of abstract concept referring to reality (in reality I perceive it, even if in actuality it's an illusion). If by reality you mean 'physical' only, then I would need more clarification and would be concerned that non-physical reality has been precluded by definitions.
@MrMonkeyspanner I can imagine a purple giraffe with wings. This is an abstract concept. The concept itself exists (if it didn't, I wouldn't have imagined it) but the giraffe doesn't exist.
Thoughts are non-physical and they exist but their existence is contingent upon the mind that thinks them. And, while the thought does exist, the content of the thought may not.
@tiggster13 "And, while the thought does exist, the content of the thought may not." for sure, I was just making the a distinction ... not using it as proof : "I can think of this so since my thought exists it must exist" would be truly ridiculous (however, I wonder if Descartes would conclude the content of that thought is just as existent as everything else external to him?!)
@MrMonkeyspanner I define impossible as that which cannot happen or exist. I claim that the being in question is impossible because I see no way that it can exist. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. And, until I see a way that it could exist, I see no reason to change my position.
Now, I cannot know what is objectively possible in an absolute sense, but I can say that if something were objectively impossible then, by definition, it cannot exist.
@tiggster13 "I define impossible as that which cannot happen or exist" you have to make sure this definition is not a-priori loaded with the definition of existence involving your concept of what defines real or existent in a physical sense. Otherwise when we are in the realm of unphysical things (which we are, considering the existence of energy & space-time), we would be unable to define the concept of existence.
@MrMonkeyspanner ummm...ok. Are you going somewhere with this? Where in my definition did I allude that existence was limited to only that which I can conceive? Remember, I've already admitted that what I consider to be impossible may not actually be impossible. So, why are you making this comment?
@tiggster13 "Where in my definition did I allude that existence was limited to only that which I can conceive?" That wasn't my objection, my objection was that you have taken a definition of 'can happen' and 'exist' which seem to include the tacit assumption that 'happen' and 'existent' were only defined in a sense which you could expect to objectively verify where objectively means by observation rather than including the extent of applicable logic to the results of observations.
@MrMonkeyspanner I think you're reading more into it than what I was saying. Let me be more specific: A thing or event is objectively impossible if it objectively cannot happen or exist. This is independent of anyone's perceptions or expectations. If I consider something to be impossible it is because I think it objectively cannot happen or exist, but I may be wrong. And how I arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant so long as I have convinced myself.
@tiggster13 "I think it objectively cannot happen or exist" Ok, I think I understand your use of 'objective' in this context although I am not 100% clear if you regard propositions and logic as objective (I would).
"And how I arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant so long as I have convinced myself." With the caveat that there is no hidden assumption in that arrival which precludes objective possibility of that thing. I'm intrigued, would you care to share how you arrived at this conclusion?
@MrMonkeyspanner No I don't consider propositions or logic as objective. I believe they can be applied objectively, but, because we are subjective by nature, we can onlt talk about what we believe to be logical.
"would you care to share how you arrived at this conclusion?" Simple, I'm only human. I don't always have the luxury of knowing all the facts and, at the end of the day, its the interplay of biology and chemistry that make my decisions, not logic.
@tiggster13 "at the end of the day, its the interplay of biology and chemistry that make my decisions, not logic." How dare you leave out the physics! :-P
However, I would argue that logic is an emergent phenomenon of our neural network. I am not sure where this leaves your stance on logic.
"we can onlt talk about what we believe to be logical." Partially agreed. When logic is written down in a symbolic system it is either correct or incorrect logic (both still logic)
@tiggster13 "We derive the concepts of logic by examining the properties of reality."
I think the opposite is true. It seems clear that actually fundamental logical concepts are required to be absolutely abstracted from reality, they must be independent of any concept of reality. If they were not then they could not be used for example to analyze concepts involving reality or existence since there would be an inherent circularity. Not discounting ideas sparked from real situations, of course.
@MrMonkeyspanner Well, what ideas are not sparked from real situations, though?
For example, is a chair still a chair when no one is looking at it? This question can only be approached conceptually. So, if you are right, you should be able to find a logical answer for it.
@tiggster13 "Well, what ideas are not sparked from real situations, though?" I think you misunderstood me. I said they may well be sparked from real situations but they must stand on their own independent of reality eventually. Also this does not apply to all ideas, just to the fundamental logical concepts.
@tiggster13 "is a chair still a chair when no one is looking at it?"
For me to answer you must define 'chair' and 'looking at'. If the definition of a chair is that it's a physical one and the definition of physical properties are that they hold independent of perspective of the observer (and there is a hidden stipulation that nothing about the scenario has changed except the state of the observer). Then the chair is still a chair since its properties are implicitly defined such that no change.
@MrMonkeyspanner Really? What about probability theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? What if it is the act of observing the chair that causes it to be a chair?
Why do you think that the properties of a chair don't change? Isn't it your experiences and not your logic that has taught you this? How can you logically rule out causes that might only exist when no one is looking at them?
@tiggster13 "What about probability theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?" I fail to see what either of these things have to do with a physical chair, the state of being a not-chair is not accessible from the state of being a chair. The probability that it for example evaporates into photons is not small it is zero, since its atoms will not have sufficient energy to beget such a vaporisation (this is the reason I stipulated nothing changes in the scenario).
@tiggster13 "Why do you think that the properties of a chair don't change?" I specifically demanded that the chair had physical properties and defined those properties as independent of observer perspective. Therefore by the definitions I required to make may claim, the properties of the chair could not depend on the fact of me changing perspective (including opening eyes) to see it. Therefore if it was there it must still be there because nothing has changed insofar as the chair is concerned.
@MrMonkeyspanner Why did you define the chair in such a way as to make changing the properties impossible?
I'll tell you - because that is how observable reality works. All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to. There is no such thing as a totally abstracted logical concept because they are all grounded in our observations of reality.
@tiggster13 "Why ... define the chair ... to make changing the properties impossible?" Not a-priori impossible. If it is a chair which is physical (that is, it's 'chairness' is encoded in it's physical properties) and it's properties change for the mere fact of a perspective change, then the properties in question are not physical properties. The reason this is so comes back to identity, If a thing doesn't have space-time symmetries it can't be identified as a thing in the universe ...
@MrMonkeyspanner "The reason this is so comes back to identity" This is an important point. If the properties in question depended on observer perspective then any two observers could not necessarily agree on propositions involving those properties. Repeating experiments would have no meaning, a law would only be applicable for a particular instance and hence would not be a law, just a statement. These properties cannot be physical for it would render the term 'physical' meaningless.
@MrMonkeyspanner Could the second observer agree with the first on the properties of the chair if neither of them is looking at it? Wouldn't any laws concerning the unobserved chair be more a matter of faith than reason? Is it logical to apply the term "physical" to something that is unobserved?
@tiggster13 "Wouldn't any laws concerning the unobserved chair be more a matter of faith than reason?" Absolutely not, since I specifically defined that the chair must have physical properties, and what physical property means to me. Furthermore, if you are at this level of uncertainty about the chair, how have you convinced yourself we're still talking about a chair at all?
@MrMonkeyspanner "If it is a chair which is physical and it's properties change for the mere fact of a perspective change, then the properties in question are not physical properties." What do you base this premise upon? Where did you get the idea that physical properties require observable events in order to be changed?
@tiggster13 "Where did you get the idea that physical properties require observable events in order to be changed?" They don't have to be observable events, but that seems beside the point. Let me state it this way: If a law of physics depends on the perspective of the observer then it is not a valid law of physics.
Just to pre-empt, this is not affected in any way by the involvement of an observer in obtaining a result in quantum theory.
@MrMonkeyspanner I understand the premise, I want to know upon what this premise is based. I contend that the only valid laws of physics that we arre aware of are those laws that we had encountered in our collective subjective experience. In other words you cannot arrive at the conclusion "If a law of physics depends on the perspective of the observer then it is not a valid law of physics." can be reached by abstract reasoning alone.
@tiggster13 "In other words you cannot arrive at the conclusion [snip] can be reached by abstract reasoning alone." It runs along the following lines:
If the law itself (not just the observation) depends on the perspective of each member of the collective then that collective could not verify they are talking about the same law in order to study it (there is insufficient symmetry for identity). Do you see how any such law must be outside of study by physics? I can clarify if you like ...
@MrMonkeyspanner Just because a law can't be studied that doesn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. So even though the collective cannot study this law that doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist.
Rational thought proceeds by beginning with facts and working towards a conclusion. Faith begins with a conclusion and then looks for facts to support it. In this situation there are no facts so why have you jumped to a conclusion and tried to support it? Why do you think this is rational?
"Just because a law can't be studied that doesn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. So even though the collective cannot study this law that doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist."
Absolutely, that's part of my grounds. I believe there are things which are possible that we can't necessarily study the way we want. However, that was simply showing that such a phenomena (if it existed) would be necessarily outside the scope of physical science. Nothing more.
@tiggster13 "because that is how observable reality works" I disagree with the proposition that all reality is observable.
"All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to" I disagree, there are no observations relevant to the vast majority of mathematics, other than observations which are made entirely within the world of abstract logic.
"There is no such thing as a totally abstracted logical concept"
@MrMonkeyspanner I didn't say that all reality is observable, I was commenting on that part of reality that is.
"there are no observations relevant to the vast majority of mathematics, other than observations which are made entirely within the world of abstract logic." The logic within mathematics is based in the operations and the operations are all derived from observed reality.
"Why not e.g. group, monoid?" They had to come from somewhere.
@tiggster13 "the operations are all derived from observed reality." My point was that this isn't true. You can write a symbol and a rule for a symbol and find a myriad of consequences. At this stage the line between maths and symbolic logic is so blurry for a good reason, the distinction is purely artificial. There is no reason to suppose your idea for the symbols and their rules had to come from reality. Unless you mean in the apparently irrelevant sense that our minds are contingent on reality
@MrMonkeyspanner Give a child who has never studied mathematics a bag of 36 marbles and ask her to group them so that there are as many groups as there are marbles in each group. With a little trial and error, she'll find that she can make 6 groups of 6 marbles each. This is where square roots originated. Name a symbol that corresponds to an operation that can't be demonstrated without the symbol.
@tiggster13 "Name a symbol that corresponds to an operation that can't be demonstrated without the symbol." I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'demonstrated'. Do you consider a transformation of a Klein bottle to be demonstrable? It's proven that it could not be constructed in ND<4D (although infinite projections can). You can't have a meaningful symbol except one defined in terms of other symbols who do have meaning. Is this what you're getting at? How does e.g. Paraconsistent logic fit in?
@tiggster13 "Paraconsistent logic doesn't fit in here because I thought we were talking about how mathematics relates to logic in this thread." Well, it is still a type of logic useful to mathematicians in proofs, but we can certainly leave it out and stick to clearer examples.
"A Klein Bottle is not, itself, a logic concept but the end result of a mathematical process." Surely the end result of a mathematical process is always expressible as a logic concept (if not considered one as-is)?
@tiggster13 ""Why not e.g. group, monoid?" They had to come from somewhere." Well, for example, the idea of groups came from the idea of symmetry. However, no observation in they physical world could ever change the definition of a group. Where it came from is irrelevant to the fact that what it is now and the proofs associated with groups cannot change for the sake of any future observations about real world symmetry.
@MrMonkeyspanner I'm not suggesting the real world changes the definition of a group, I'm saying that the definition comes from reality. You say this is irrelevant but this is the point I've been trying to make. Logic is derived from our observations of reality.
@tiggster13 "You say this is irrelevant but this is the point I've been trying to make." Apologies, I do not see how that ideas in mathematics or logic ultimately originated from real world experience (which we both agree) affects the truth of "All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to" where this part of our debate started. Except that if it is a given that the abstract logic is from experience, then relation to observation is automatic.
@MrMonkeyspanner "ultimately originated from real world experience" I should clarify. A mathematician now can write down symbols and how they are related. E.g. Hoffstadter's MU system. This is demonstrable but in symbols only since it is only defined in symbols. Even though to understand what the hell he's doing, you would need to have a real world concept of 'sentence' and 'alphabet'. Does this make my position any clearer?
@MrMonkeyspanner "Does this make my position any clearer?" To relate this further, that sense of depending on reality must be given for any logic. One thing I disagree with is that the results of any given logic must be related back to reality to either have meaning or be held true. The premises from which I constructed my argument for the supernatural origin are all strongly grounded in reality, however the conclusion cannot (as a result of that logic) be directly accessed by our experience.
I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that, aside from patting yourself on the back for thinking up a real cool idea, how can you or anyone else benefit from this argument?
@tiggster13 "aside from patting yourself on the back for thinking up a real cool idea, how can you or anyone else benefit from this argument?"
Do you mean the argument for my definition of physical object? Or argument for the 'origin' being necessarily beyond study by physical sciences? The former is well known, the latter not so much so. There are several important consequences of the latter. 1) people who have faith that science will explain that are IMO waiting for the impossible 2) ..3)...
You seem to be defending a very rigidly defined concept of logic and I'm being very general and unspecific.
It's as if I'm saying "Building began as mud huts with thatched roofs." and you point to a skyscraper and ask "Show me the mud hut that that started out as?"
"It's as if I'm saying "Building began as mud huts with thatched roofs." and you point to a skyscraper and ask "Show me the mud hut that that started out as?""
I like that, and may have to steal it as an example in future... The funny thing is, I thought you were pointing to the city of maths and saying show me something which couldn't have come from a mud hut!
I think you're correct that we're arguing on the same side from slightly different approaches.
@JesusforLife2 You said, "If they are dependent on matter and aren't obeyed, name one instance where these Laws have been broken." Ok, are you really that stupid?
Do you "obey" the law of gravity? Can you choose to "disobey" the law of gravity? Do you not understand that the type of laws we are talking about are not legislative statutes that can be accepted or dismissed at will? Matter does not obey logic because logic is not something that can be obeyed.
@JesusforLife2 Asking a question like, 'why is the universe logical?' is like asking 'why is a ball spherical?'. What other shape would a ball be? If you had a ball that wasn't spherical would it still be a ball? Do the think balls obey their sphericalness?
Reality has properties. We recognize those properties and call some of them logical and we give them the label 'law'. But, just because we call them laws doesn't mean they can be broken. Nor do they have any authority. They just are.
@JesusforLife2 Oh one more thing. I notice that you've completely ignored my questions. So I've decided that it's safe to say that you must find them impossible to respond to and, as such, is a clear indication that your worldview is flawed and inferior to my own.
If you choose to continue to ignore this issue I will assume that you acknowledge this to be the case and agree with my conclusion.
@JesusforLife2 You said, "Typical question begging from an atheist concerning his irrational Naturalism." That is an ad hom.
Now, why don't you back up your bs with some answers: Define and describe what an uncaused cause is and how one could possibly exist. And, while you're at it, explain how something that isn't physical can directly cause an event to happen.
"explain how something that isn't physical can directly cause an event to happen."
It's no longer bound by physical laws, I presume by event you mean a change involving energy in space-time. What do you mean by 'explain how'? You seem to be asking a loaded question. What class of non-physical explanation would you accept? The only logical answer to your question seems to be "a process such that the laws of physics remain consistent".
@JesusforLife2 You said, "The problem isn't one of ignorance, but one of impossibility for Naturalism. "
Yeah, I'm sure it seems impossible to you. Why else would you invent a god to solve it for you? But there has to be an answer to the origin of the universe. Do you really think your big, bearded hobgoblin is in any way a reasonable explanation? How many times does science and naturalism have to prove you wrong before you're willing to let go of your delusions?
@mritalyboy2000 please re-watch this video again. at 2:40 "actual infinite's cannot exist in the physical word" The god hypothesis is transcends the physical word.
but for you, if you want to critizice the first uncaused caused, and say it is not god, you have to still give an hypothesis and not just plea ignorant.
(its become so incredibly irritating to hear atheist object to the god hypothesis and never have an answer for anything)
@kilerspartin no because it stated that if something exists then god created it, which is faulty logic, things can exists and god didnt create it. it starts with the assumption of what it is trying to prove is already true and that is why it is faulty
Here's what I don't get about this argument. It sets out to prove that nothing can be infinite and everything needs a cause, and illustrates how the universe would need both a beginning and a cause. So to solve this problem, they say, well, it was created by a beginningless causeless being. Does this strike anybody else as a bit odd? Also, why couldn't nature have existed in a beginningless causeless state until the universe was caused to exist? This is a fairly weak argument in my opinion.
Toyomo16 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Evolution can easily explain as WHY WE TEND TO BELIEVE in Cosmological Argument even thoug it is SIMPLY WRONG. It is due to an error of perception.
For Full explanation see Vox Mentis at voxmentis(dot)com/2011/05/differentiating-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
TheSiddharthkaushal 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Cosmological Argument is absolutely unconvincing.
Premise: All causes lead to their respective effects
Premise 2: All effects are preceded by their respective causes.
It is these two premises that allowed us to trace causality backwards and form a chain of logic that apparently led to the point of inferring the ‘first cause’. To assert a 'uncaused cause’ is to DENY the premise 2 above.
CONTRADICTION!!!
Read more at voxmentis(dot)com/2011/04/comparison-of-paradoxes-refutation-of.html
TheSiddharthkaushal 3 months ago
the fifth dimension is the key to the problem with this arguement
the speaker talks about 'the beginning'
but time is simulataneous there is no 'beginning'
whitesquirrel7 3 months ago
Just because the universe exists... doesn't automatically prove God exists.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 You are correct but with the design of the universe and the idea that all design has a designer, this proves that there must be some designer of the universe. Right? There must be a supreme being because how else could the universe have obtained its design without a designer?
dbrosk 4 months ago
@dbrosk Quantum physics.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 How were quanta particles created though?
dbrosk 4 months ago
@dbrosk Quantum fluctuation theory on how energy came through a vacuum.
anticorncob6 4 months ago
@anticorncob6 The energy is finite and the vacuum has not been proven to be infinite, so there is a chance that the vacuum could be finite which would bring up a problem. Something finite cannot bring itself into existence. Therefore, there is a possibility that if the vacuum is finite, there must be some infinite power that brought it into existence.
dbrosk 4 months ago
God is a point of conjecture. Since, what explains god?
MyContext 6 months ago
@MyContext Does God require an explanation if He is eternal?
What explains the principles of logic?
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Yes, all claims of god need an explanation given the dubious mythological base from which all known god notions arise.
The only thing that can be said of the principles of logic to the extent that we understand it - is simply that it works. What explains the totality of existence? We don't know. Yes, we could make up all kinds of stuff that fits within the limits of what we currently know, however, could we really call it the truth - given that it is based on our ignorance?
MyContext 6 months ago
@MyContext “Yes, all claims of god need an explanation given the dubious mythological base from which all known god notions arise.”
That's simply committing the genetic fallacy.
skepticalchristian(.)com/evolutionofbelief(.)htm
“The only thing that can be said of the principles of logic to the extent that we understand it - is simply that it works. What explains the totality of existence?”
If God is the best explanation for the available information, then what's your objection?
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 The genetic fallacy does not apply. If I had used the claim of one thing to discredit another thing, you would have a point. I am saying the thing in question is flawed from inception. All claims of god of which I am aware are based on mythologies. If we had evidence for god, my claims would be pointless. Check out user EVID3NC3 (history of god) for a summary of the mythology as known. Please check out the replies as well...
MyContext 6 months ago
@MyContext Given that god as presented is mythology. One could postulate the idea of a god, but not on the basis of the mythology, since, it (the god concept) was just sociological notions of what people did not understand which grew over time into various religions. The term god could be redefined to mean - things that we do not currently understand.
MyContext 6 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 If we claimed god from a deist perspective, it would be an acceptable filler. The best answer is honestly - We do not know. Which further means, we could study it until we have exhausted our options for exploring the explorable possibilities or we actually get the answer or just give up.
Yes, you are right that some people just want an answer even if it is wrong. However, bad answers corrupt our ability to make good decisions, since, it amounts to false information.
MyContext 6 months ago
Comment removed
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
@MyContext Check for the answers in your PM inbox, I don't want to keep cluttering the comments section with our conversation :) Hope you don't mind.
CarlosMarti123 6 months ago
ive never heard the word 'infinate' so much in my life- this has confused me even more. I am going to fail my Religious studies exam :L ):
Alanasworldx 9 months ago
if you had one cd that had a infinite amount of music on it why would you need a infinite cd collection? because you would have infinite music so infinite cd collection would just take up a infinite amount of space.
TheVindicatedOne 10 months ago
Hm, which god?
GabSte1989 11 months ago
WTF IF U HAVE 2 BEATLES CD'S AND 1 BACH CD U HAVE MORE BEATLES CD'S???????
bertos09 11 months ago
So if actual infinites don't exist, an infinite god is not actual.
An abstract god can't manipulate actual material.
This argument is so weak! Even if all premisses were right - which they are not - it would only suggest a super-natural being. Where is the proof this is what some humans call a god or even more so a Muslim or Zoroastrian god?
StopSpamming1 11 months ago
@StopSpamming1 Hmm... Funny thing that when most atheists like you try to "critique" these videos, you don't actually state WHY the videos are wrong.
If an actual infinite doesn't exist, then how can God exist? >>> /watch?v=dXQ9Hc_rfdc
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123
I point out 3 weaknesses and why. What more does it take?
StopSpamming1 10 months ago
@StopSpamming1 What three weaknesses? The ones you never wrote?
CarlosMarti123 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarlosMarti123
1. So if actual infinites don't exist, an infinite god is not actual.
2. An abstract god can't manipulate actual material.
3. Even if all premisses were right - which they are not - it would only suggest a super-natural being. Where is the proof this is what some humans call a god or even more so a Muslim or Zoroastrian god?
Do you require a map?
StopSpamming1 10 months ago
@CarlosMarti123 Stopspamming did actually state the flaw he found, if you would scoot your eyes back to the top of his comment
WTFortissimoable 3 months ago
As hard as you tried, you still haven't proven that the universe cannot be infinitely old.
Just because it is impossible to imagine does not make it so. It is actually quite understood mathematically that we could have an infinitely old universe, if we assume higher dimensions. The fourth dimension (time), along with our 3 spacial dimensions can easily be folded to a loop within the fifth, the same way we can bend a 2d playing card thru the 3rd to make an infinite loop.
er876897 11 months ago
The Cosmological Argument has been refuted numerous times.
Who is to say God did not need a cause to exist? If He did, then he couldn't exist due to the illogical concept of an infinite regression of causes.
Even if he did not need a cause to exist, then one must ask why any person can assume the Universe needed a cause to exist. No one can say for sure.
Therefore, this argument is ludicrous.
M1sterE321 1 year ago
@M1sterE321 ["Even if he did not need a cause to exist, then one must ask why any person can assume the Universe needed a cause to exist. No one can say for sure."]
Because that's what the argument deduces, you cant accept the premises and then say it doesnt follow unless you show the argument is invalid, if something is demonstrated, it is true regardless if we can explain its existence. Asking a question doesnt negate the truth value of a deduction.
Theology1O1 1 year ago
Comment removed
M1sterE321 1 year ago
@M1sterE321
the fatal flaw in the arguement is that things can 'only come into existence via an act of will' even a breif moment of reflection will show this to be fallacious
whitesquirrel7 1 year ago
@whitesquirrel7 I thought this too. I can imagine someone hanging out up there in the 5th dimension, spilling their cup of tea and accidentally causing the universe.
WTFortissimoable 3 months ago
This is brilliant. Thank you.
PianoPlayingMonkey 1 year ago
oh god i just threw up in my mouth a little. i have nothing inteligent to say about this video
SlykRyk666 1 year ago
@SlykRyk666 No surprise seeing the lack of intelligence in your post.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
Try looking up the video: A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss
It actually explains how the universe does not need a cause to pop into existence
henriktor 1 year ago
It's inevitably going to be a lethal flaw in this argument to presume that all things must have a cause, even with the slippery "Kalam" expedient of "all things that begin to exist" -- because if the universe began to exist then time began to exist and there could be no causality without time which means that causality itself as a phenomenon must have begun to exist just as other physical processes like gravity began to exist.
But to require that "causality" must have had a cause is absurd.
prodprod 1 year ago
I think I just drowned in the video's bullshit.
KidMeatball 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Four common reasons why I think there is no god; A) Total absence from the natural world. No sign of a god, before, during or after, natural disastres B) The absolute absence of favoritism towards believers. Even churches need lightning-rods to protect them from god. C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. C) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept that the guilty must suffer, but children ???
lizazoon 1 year ago
Similarly (but not the same) I can “prove” to you that you cannot walk even one meter: to walk one meter you must first walk half a meter, then half of half a meter and so on and so forth *infinitely* number of times. Actually you will not be able to move at all – since the same hold for any distance > 0.
This is known as Zeno paradox, and in fact it is a false paradox – a clever play with the *intuitive* term ‘infinite’. (4/4)
JustGuy17 1 year ago
The second part about time can be summarized as: If A exists infinite time than we cannot reach time B since there was infinite time before that. Replace A with ‘universe’, and B with ‘now’, and you get the claim. However, you can also replace A with God and B with the creation (about 5000 years ago according to the bible) and you end up with *exactly* the same argument, God could not have created the world 5000 years ago – because there was infinite time before that.
(3/4)
JustGuy17 1 year ago
Now are there more even natural number of natural numbers? The answer is that there are *the same* number because the can be matched: number N matches even number 2*N. *NOT* because they are both infinite – both real numbers and natural numbers are infinite – yet there are many more real number than infinite numbers – the cannot be matched in any way – proof exists in any mathematic book on Sets. Therefore the first part of the discussion is simply wrong. (2/4)
JustGuy17 1 year ago
Clear but faulty presentation here is why: 1/4
The discussion of infinite is due to lack of knowledge about Sets in mathematics that did not exist when the argument was formed. For example if there are two set, say a group of boys and a group of girls – they are of the same size, of course, if you can count the number of boys and girls and find them equal. But also if you can match boys and girls without leaving any boy or any girl alone – that too say that that both group have the same size
JustGuy17 1 year ago
The creator god, one day , stepped out of the void, said ' POOF' and lo and behold; there was the whole universe. with all it`s galaxies, each with billions of stars, all billions of light years from each other. And all that in a nano second. What a great god !!!!!!!
lizazoon 1 year ago
Nothing exists outside the universe otherwise it would not be a universe.
There is no such thing as "outside of space" or "before time" these terms are oxymorons. The concepts are just as paradoxical as infinity.
Nothing objectively comes into existence What we subjectively call 'things' are simply rearrangements of energy and matter.
Causes and effects are driven by time.
A will, and conscience itself is also tied to time
The KCA is childish anthropomorphic projection at its best.
Hufflewaffle 1 year ago
@Hufflewaffle "Nothing exists outside the universe otherwise it would not be a universe." What have you been smoking? The universe is OUR universe, many theories posit that there may be other universes, what does that mean to you? Obviously your definition of universe differs from the one used by cosmologists. Also, your argument shows the hidden presumption that only physical things can exist which is provably false e.g. concept of fairies is a real unphysical concept whether true or not.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
This video ignores one thing. What/who created god? If this "god" created the universe, then there must have been a time before the universe during which god existed, but the universe didn't. So what was there before god created the universe? Just god? Who made him? But god is not material. So there would have been nothing. And, according to the law of the conservation of mass, if there was nothing but this immaterial object then nothing material could have been created.
xXsharppshooterXx 1 year ago
@xXsharppshooterXx "And, according to the law of the conservation of mass, if there was nothing but this immaterial object then nothing material could have been created." what's to stop an unphysical being creating something unphysical and then changing its properties such that at the end of the process it is physical? Only after the process, when it exists, is it bound by that or any laws of physics.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
You now realize that the cosmological argument completely ignores one major tenet of physics, the conservation of energy, to place undue emphasis on another, causality.
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
@TheScienceFoundation
"ignores one major tenet of physics, the conservation of energy."
Cosmological argument can be made based on energy conservation:
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it exists. Therefore either it always existed or it was created. The property of always existing is unphysical so you have to treat the universe as a whole as a supernatural entity, thus it could have many non-physical properties. Or it was created by an entity not bound by the laws of physics.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMonkeyspanner
'Matter cannot be created or destroyed, but it exists. Therefore either it always existed or it was created. '
>Matter cannot be created or destroyed
>or it was created
You don't see a problem there?
No the property of always existing is not unphysical, the property of being necessarily outside of observable reality is unphysical.
CreationistCrap 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CreationistCrap
">Matter cannot be created or destroyed
>or it was created
You don't see a problem there?"
No, "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" is a law which is applicable to pysical energy in the universe, nothing more or less. This is why the origin must have operated outside of these laws. For example creating something unphysical and modifying its properties so that it became a physical thing. The laws would only apply once the process of giving it physical properties is complete
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheScienceFoundation 1 year ago
utlimately we make our decisions based on our own experiences, and our own viewpoint, an atheist is an atheist because they want to, 90% of the time due to unpleaseant association with christians, muslims, etc. or just from feeling pleasure in simplicity, and christians/muslims etc are the way they are bc they feel a sense of peace from it, either lifestyle is fine, thats the beauty of free will, but an atheist doesnt have the right to criticize anyone bc of their beliefs, when they have none
mustanglp50 1 year ago
@mustanglp50
"but an atheist doesnt have the right to criticize anyone bc of their beliefs, when they have none" I don't see why having 'none' (everyone must have beliefs to function) forfeits their ability to criticize the logic or resulting actions of a belief system. Criticism is inherent in critical analysis for obvious reasons, it is required for finding a solid logical foundation from which one makes their choices in life. This criticism is necessary *because* beliefs are so important.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner when based on the question such as how the universe begain, what happens when we die, questions that cannot be answered by the sci method and are outside the emperical realm, thier beliefs are forefited because their beliefs yeild no answer and as for a solid logical foundation for choices in life, life is not meant to be logical, nobody chooses their religious beliefs because of logic, but thats a diff. convo all together
mustanglp50 1 year ago
@mustanglp50 "nobody chooses their religious beliefs because of logic" I have only ever chosen my religious beliefs because of logic. Logic initially led me from Christianity I grew up with to Atheism. Faulty logic led be to Islam, having been a practicing muslim I discovered my logic and am now a monotheist where I stay because I can find and have been shown no faulty logic in my beliefs as a monotheist.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "I discovered my logic " meant to say discovered my logic flaws (they were erroneous implicit assumptions).
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@mustanglp50 "thier beliefs are forefited because their beliefs yeild no answer" This is simply not true, the beliefs are the premises from which conclusions are drawn, if these conclusions satisfy the question then they yeild answers to the questions.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@mustanglp50 "questions that cannot be answered by the sci method and are outside the emperical realm," Being outside the empirical realm does not mean that the truth of them cannot be confirmed. That modular forms can be used to prove Fermat's last theorem has nothing to do with empirical evidence. Only a small, narrow fraction of available truths can be proved with empirical evidence, since the concept is only applicable to a small fraction of truths.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
scribd (dot) com/nb812
DreamsofMajesty 1 year ago
You are my hero :D
Diathorus 1 year ago
An uncaused cause is like the square root of a negative number. It can come in handy when you need to solve an abstract problem, but you have to remember - they don't actually exist.
So what is more probable, that something that can't exist created the universe or a naturally occurring phenomena that we don't know about yet is responsible?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 Typical question begging from an atheist concerning his irrational Naturalism. Either something has a natural physical explanation or it doesn't exist right? I guess the Laws of Logic don't exist since they are independent of nature transcending it. I also love the typical argument from ignorance projected from a Naturalist such as yourself using the Naturalism of Gaps. The problem isn't one of ignorance, but one of impossibility for Naturalism.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Typical ad hom attacks from a dishonest apologist.
Please define and describe what an uncaused cause is and how one could possibly exist given the premise that EVERYTHING that exists must have a cause.
And, if by laws of logic you are speaking of the concept of logic, then they exist as concepts, if not, then they are not independent of nature.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 Because I presented an argument you can't refute its turns into an ad hominem attack? Do you even know what an ad hominem attack is? Talk about intellectual dishonesty. Everything that is natural or physical must have a cause is the premise. I'm talking about the Laws themselves. I find it odd seeing you say they are conceptual, absolute, and unchanging. The only mind that can house absolute and unchanging conceptual Laws is an absolute and unchanging mind aka God.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 When did I say the laws were conceptual, absolute and unchanging? The concept of logic is conceptual and, therefore, neither absolute nor unchanging.
Now, the only question you asked was, "Either something has a natural physical explanation or it doesn't exist right?" My answer: I know of nothing that exists that can't have a natural physical explanation.
Please provide an example of something that exists that cannot have a natural physical explanation.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 So the Laws of Logic aren't absolute and unchanging? Are you absolutely sure about that? The Laws, if you haven't noticed, are prescriptive. They shape physical reality. The natural universe is subject to obey these Laws. The Laws aren't dependent upon space, time, or matter. They are not part of nature. Beautiful strawman accusing me of using the God of Gaps when you use your Naturalism of Gaps. Sorry, the non-natural Laws of Logic destroy your irrational Naturalism.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You're confusing the concept of logic with the principles of reality that they are based on. These principles are very likely absolute and unchanging but they are not conceptual. Its like confusing a photo of a person with the person, they may look the same but they are not.
These 'laws' don't shape reality, they are properties of reality as well as time space and matter and the universe does not "obey" them.
When you gonna answer my questions, you hypocrite?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tigg They do shape reality. The natural universe consists of time, space, and matter. These Laws are timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. They are non-natural or supernatural. To assert they are properties of the natural universe is illogical. Since the natural universe is changing matter in motion, how are absolute and unchanging laws derived from this? They still exist even if matter didnt. If they are dependent on matter and aren't obeyed, name one instance where these Laws have been broken.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 An egg is an egg. It is also not, not an egg. If you turn the egg into an omelet it is now an omelet and it is not, not an omelet. Matter can change and move all it wants to, it has absolutely no bearing on the logic properties of reality.
And the only laws that are derived from the motion and changing of matter are the conceptual ideas I spoke of earlier; and these are neither absolute nor unchanging.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 Guess what happens while matter changes, the Laws do not. Thanks for proving the Laws aren't dependent upon matter with your example, but vice-versa and even saying so. There you go falling back to concepts, im talking about the Laws themselves. So your answer is "They just are". Question begging/circular logic at its finest. Well, God exists because "He just does". Matter is forced to act in accordance with the Laws, if you are going to assert otherwise, prove where matter doesnt.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JfL2 "Thanks for proving the Laws aren't dependent upon matter with your example,". Strawman, I never said that were dependent.
"So your answer is "They just are"". Strawman again. I've explained this, but you don't have the guts to address it.
"Matter is forced to act in accordance with the Laws" To use the phrase "is forced to" implies an outside agent and begs your question. Matter does act in accordance with logic but only because 'logical' is the way we describe how matter acts.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tig So the Laws aren't derived from Matter? Thanks for destroying your own argument. You didn't explain anything all you said was "Nor do they have any authority. They just are." then go on to say "Matter does act in accordance with logic". Paradox? It doesn't matter how we "describe it". If we didn't exist, these Laws still do and still force matter to obey them. I said nothing about a Deity nor am I implying one. This is about the Laws not being Natural which destroys your foolish Naturalism.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 We derive the concepts of logic by examining the properties of reality. Quit trying to confuse this issue by quote mining my statements.
And what about those questions I asked you? You have neither the guts nor the honesty to confront them.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 Not true. We derive the Laws of Nature/Physics from observing matter since they deal with actions. The Laws of Logic deals with conceptual truth statements. By using your logic, then Quantum Mechanics prove the Laws aren't absolute since we observe an electron acting as a particle and a wave. If you are trying to say we discover the Laws of Logic, I agree. The only way the Laws of Logic are part of nature is if they are not absolute. Are you willing to commit intellectual suicide?
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Does quantum mechanics show that matter acts illogically or does it show that there's till a lot we don't understand about the way that sub-atomic particles work? Either way, didn't say that these laws were absolute, I said they might be absolute - only an omniscient being could really know for sure.
You can twist the facts all you want but you're never going to make it possible for an impossible being to exist.
You dishonest coward.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@t The point was we don't derive the Laws of Logic from matter. They are a-priori knowledge. We know them innately and project them upon what we observe. Wait so the Laws "might" be absolute? Are you kidding me? Are you seriously going to dive into irrationality and claim the Laws might not be absolute? Do you even know the ramifications of what you just said? When you start questioning the Law of Non-Contradiction, you are contradicting yourself. Irrational Athiesm, sin is corrupting your mind.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "The point was we don't derive the Laws of Logic from matter. They are a-priori knowledge. We know them innately and project them upon what we observe." So if we stopped thinking these laws were true reality would change - yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
Right the laws might be absolute just like you might be an asshole. All we know about is our little corner of reality. To assert that our experiences must bebut perfectly accurate and universal is arrogant and short sighted.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggst Nice straw-man, quote me where I said the Laws were dependent on our minds. What I said was how we know them. So you have no absolute standard for truth not even knowing if the Laws are absolute. That means truth and rationality doesn't exist. You essentially destroyed yourself in this argument. To claim the Laws might not be absolute is not only foolish and irrational, but self-defeating as you continue to appeal to them as if they are absolute. Thanks for showing your illogical Atheism
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Ok, buttwipe, let's see your absolute standard of truth.
You're a liar, a coward and an idiot.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@ti Here is the result of cornering a religious atheist and his illogical self-refuting beliefs he won't let go, he whips out the personal insults and ad hominem attacks. No surprise seeing as this atheist was allready doing that in every post. You have broken God's Law of the 10 commandments and will be going to hell sinner. God loves you and desires you not to perish, but have everlasting life. Jesus willingly died for you and only requires repentance and faith. God bless your filthy heart.
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Your still a coward, a liar and an idiot.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2
"Jesus willingly died for you and only requires repentance and faith."
So God put himself through a painful experience (if He kept in the pain) knowing full well he would actually be having a 2 day sleep and wake up again before he goes off to have a party in heaven and that's supposed to be a great sacrifice? People have made greater sacrifices for lesser causes. The whole thing is like a 'protection racket' if you pay (give faith) you won't get hurt, otherwise bad things...
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "To assert that our experiences must bebut perfectly accurate and universal is arrogant and short sighted." I don't understand how you can know this and yet claim that God is impossible.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Well, it depends on which god we're talking about. The only gods that I would consider to be impossible are those that are defined in such a way as to be impossible.
Any possible god would, therefore, be possible.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Now, you dishonest little dimwit, are you going to stop pretending to have a valid position on this issue, or would you, instead, man up and answer my questions?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 "project them upon what we observe." Not project on to, they happen to be all we have to understand observations. If logic is not relevant to something we can't understand that thing, thus cannot accurately reason with that concept. To do so would enable you to 'prove' anything including contradictions (see e.g. Russel) and nullify all resulting use of logic.
"going to dive into irrationality" Surely you've already dived there by accepting something is true without logic.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You can twist the facts all you want but you're never going to make it possible for an impossible being to exist."
What makes you claim that such a being is impossible? What is your definition of impossible? What defines what is possible? Do you think not possible within this universe defines impossible in an absolute sense? Then how come abstract things which require no universe to exist are possible (or do you deny the possibility of an abstract concept?!)
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner First, any sort of concept is possible (that's what makes imaginary things so neat).
Now, we need to differential between what I perceive as impossible and what objectively is impossible and note that, due to the fact that I'm limited in what I can perceive, I cannot tell one from the other (to me, what I see as impossible is objectively impossible) Could I be wrong? Absolutely. (I'd be surprised if I wasn't) But, until the impossible happens I can't know where I'm wrong.
tiggster13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tiggster13 "Now, we need to differential between what I perceive as impossible and what objectively is impossible and note that, due to the fact that I'm limited in what I can perceive, I cannot tell one from the other "
Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations, only a limit in the *logic* you can perceive limits your ability to determine the possibility or impossibility of a concept.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations". I never said that they did. I was talking about my observations which would be subjective in nature, not objective.
"only a limit in the *logic* you can perceive limits your ability to determine the possibility or impossibility of a concept." No, we are limited by much more than that.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 ""Objectively impossible encompasses more than objective observations". I never said that they did." To clarify, I was not claiming you said that, I was claiming something myself. What I meant was that in order to objectively show that something is impossible you can use more than objective observations, you can also use logic and if the logic implies a contradiction with objective 'truths' or within the proposition in question, *then* you can say it is objectively 'impossible'.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I was talking about my observations which would be subjective in nature, not objective." Well, the direct observations would be subjective, however it is possible for people to determine objective truths from a set of subjective observations.
"No, we are limited by much more than that." I disagree, I hold that logic, independent of anything else, can determine the possibility or impossibility of any thing which is sufficiently accurately representable with logic.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Well, be sure to let me know if you ever find such a thing.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Well, be sure to let me know if you ever find such a thing." I presume you are referring to something which is accurately representable by logic? Well, I think qualities of physical things can be accurately represented, even if the full set of all qualities that could describe a thing are known that does not guarantee that everything about it is known. Modular forms and Fermat's last theorem are perfectly accurately representable by logic.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." Einstein.
I think the same can be said for abstract concepts.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I think the same can be said for abstract concepts." I think saying the same for abstract concepts produces a contradiction:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to abstract concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to abstract concepts. -tiggster13 :-P
maths subset abstract so:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to mathematical concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to mathematical concepts.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMonkeyspanner Did you really not understand what I meant?
I guess I'm going to have to be explain this.
I did not mean, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to abstract concepts, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to abstract concepts."
I meant, "As far as the abstract concepts refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
Now do you understand?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Did you really not understand what I meant?" I see, sorry, I took it the other way!
Yes, I understand that position and I still have some issue with it. "I perceive an (imperfect) square" is a statement of abstract concept referring to reality (in reality I perceive it, even if in actuality it's an illusion). If by reality you mean 'physical' only, then I would need more clarification and would be concerned that non-physical reality has been precluded by definitions.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I can imagine a purple giraffe with wings. This is an abstract concept. The concept itself exists (if it didn't, I wouldn't have imagined it) but the giraffe doesn't exist.
Thoughts are non-physical and they exist but their existence is contingent upon the mind that thinks them. And, while the thought does exist, the content of the thought may not.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "And, while the thought does exist, the content of the thought may not." for sure, I was just making the a distinction ... not using it as proof : "I can think of this so since my thought exists it must exist" would be truly ridiculous (however, I wonder if Descartes would conclude the content of that thought is just as existent as everything else external to him?!)
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I define impossible as that which cannot happen or exist. I claim that the being in question is impossible because I see no way that it can exist. Could I be wrong? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong. And, until I see a way that it could exist, I see no reason to change my position.
Now, I cannot know what is objectively possible in an absolute sense, but I can say that if something were objectively impossible then, by definition, it cannot exist.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I define impossible as that which cannot happen or exist" you have to make sure this definition is not a-priori loaded with the definition of existence involving your concept of what defines real or existent in a physical sense. Otherwise when we are in the realm of unphysical things (which we are, considering the existence of energy & space-time), we would be unable to define the concept of existence.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner ummm...ok. Are you going somewhere with this? Where in my definition did I allude that existence was limited to only that which I can conceive? Remember, I've already admitted that what I consider to be impossible may not actually be impossible. So, why are you making this comment?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Where in my definition did I allude that existence was limited to only that which I can conceive?" That wasn't my objection, my objection was that you have taken a definition of 'can happen' and 'exist' which seem to include the tacit assumption that 'happen' and 'existent' were only defined in a sense which you could expect to objectively verify where objectively means by observation rather than including the extent of applicable logic to the results of observations.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I think you're reading more into it than what I was saying. Let me be more specific: A thing or event is objectively impossible if it objectively cannot happen or exist. This is independent of anyone's perceptions or expectations. If I consider something to be impossible it is because I think it objectively cannot happen or exist, but I may be wrong. And how I arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant so long as I have convinced myself.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "I think it objectively cannot happen or exist" Ok, I think I understand your use of 'objective' in this context although I am not 100% clear if you regard propositions and logic as objective (I would).
"And how I arrive at this conclusion is irrelevant so long as I have convinced myself." With the caveat that there is no hidden assumption in that arrival which precludes objective possibility of that thing. I'm intrigued, would you care to share how you arrived at this conclusion?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner No I don't consider propositions or logic as objective. I believe they can be applied objectively, but, because we are subjective by nature, we can onlt talk about what we believe to be logical.
"would you care to share how you arrived at this conclusion?" Simple, I'm only human. I don't always have the luxury of knowing all the facts and, at the end of the day, its the interplay of biology and chemistry that make my decisions, not logic.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "at the end of the day, its the interplay of biology and chemistry that make my decisions, not logic." How dare you leave out the physics! :-P
However, I would argue that logic is an emergent phenomenon of our neural network. I am not sure where this leaves your stance on logic.
"we can onlt talk about what we believe to be logical." Partially agreed. When logic is written down in a symbolic system it is either correct or incorrect logic (both still logic)
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "We derive the concepts of logic by examining the properties of reality."
I think the opposite is true. It seems clear that actually fundamental logical concepts are required to be absolutely abstracted from reality, they must be independent of any concept of reality. If they were not then they could not be used for example to analyze concepts involving reality or existence since there would be an inherent circularity. Not discounting ideas sparked from real situations, of course.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Well, what ideas are not sparked from real situations, though?
For example, is a chair still a chair when no one is looking at it? This question can only be approached conceptually. So, if you are right, you should be able to find a logical answer for it.
Warning: be ready to defend your answer!
tiggster13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tiggster13 "Well, what ideas are not sparked from real situations, though?" I think you misunderstood me. I said they may well be sparked from real situations but they must stand on their own independent of reality eventually. Also this does not apply to all ideas, just to the fundamental logical concepts.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "is a chair still a chair when no one is looking at it?"
For me to answer you must define 'chair' and 'looking at'. If the definition of a chair is that it's a physical one and the definition of physical properties are that they hold independent of perspective of the observer (and there is a hidden stipulation that nothing about the scenario has changed except the state of the observer). Then the chair is still a chair since its properties are implicitly defined such that no change.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Really? What about probability theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? What if it is the act of observing the chair that causes it to be a chair?
Why do you think that the properties of a chair don't change? Isn't it your experiences and not your logic that has taught you this? How can you logically rule out causes that might only exist when no one is looking at them?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "What about probability theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle?" I fail to see what either of these things have to do with a physical chair, the state of being a not-chair is not accessible from the state of being a chair. The probability that it for example evaporates into photons is not small it is zero, since its atoms will not have sufficient energy to beget such a vaporisation (this is the reason I stipulated nothing changes in the scenario).
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Why do you think that the properties of a chair don't change?" I specifically demanded that the chair had physical properties and defined those properties as independent of observer perspective. Therefore by the definitions I required to make may claim, the properties of the chair could not depend on the fact of me changing perspective (including opening eyes) to see it. Therefore if it was there it must still be there because nothing has changed insofar as the chair is concerned.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Why did you define the chair in such a way as to make changing the properties impossible?
I'll tell you - because that is how observable reality works. All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to. There is no such thing as a totally abstracted logical concept because they are all grounded in our observations of reality.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Why ... define the chair ... to make changing the properties impossible?" Not a-priori impossible. If it is a chair which is physical (that is, it's 'chairness' is encoded in it's physical properties) and it's properties change for the mere fact of a perspective change, then the properties in question are not physical properties. The reason this is so comes back to identity, If a thing doesn't have space-time symmetries it can't be identified as a thing in the universe ...
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "The reason this is so comes back to identity" This is an important point. If the properties in question depended on observer perspective then any two observers could not necessarily agree on propositions involving those properties. Repeating experiments would have no meaning, a law would only be applicable for a particular instance and hence would not be a law, just a statement. These properties cannot be physical for it would render the term 'physical' meaningless.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Could the second observer agree with the first on the properties of the chair if neither of them is looking at it? Wouldn't any laws concerning the unobserved chair be more a matter of faith than reason? Is it logical to apply the term "physical" to something that is unobserved?
tiggster13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tiggster13 "Wouldn't any laws concerning the unobserved chair be more a matter of faith than reason?" Absolutely not, since I specifically defined that the chair must have physical properties, and what physical property means to me. Furthermore, if you are at this level of uncertainty about the chair, how have you convinced yourself we're still talking about a chair at all?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "If it is a chair which is physical and it's properties change for the mere fact of a perspective change, then the properties in question are not physical properties." What do you base this premise upon? Where did you get the idea that physical properties require observable events in order to be changed?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Where did you get the idea that physical properties require observable events in order to be changed?" They don't have to be observable events, but that seems beside the point. Let me state it this way: If a law of physics depends on the perspective of the observer then it is not a valid law of physics.
Just to pre-empt, this is not affected in any way by the involvement of an observer in obtaining a result in quantum theory.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I understand the premise, I want to know upon what this premise is based. I contend that the only valid laws of physics that we arre aware of are those laws that we had encountered in our collective subjective experience. In other words you cannot arrive at the conclusion "If a law of physics depends on the perspective of the observer then it is not a valid law of physics." can be reached by abstract reasoning alone.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "In other words you cannot arrive at the conclusion [snip] can be reached by abstract reasoning alone." It runs along the following lines:
If the law itself (not just the observation) depends on the perspective of each member of the collective then that collective could not verify they are talking about the same law in order to study it (there is insufficient symmetry for identity). Do you see how any such law must be outside of study by physics? I can clarify if you like ...
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Just because a law can't be studied that doesn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. So even though the collective cannot study this law that doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist.
Rational thought proceeds by beginning with facts and working towards a conclusion. Faith begins with a conclusion and then looks for facts to support it. In this situation there are no facts so why have you jumped to a conclusion and tried to support it? Why do you think this is rational?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
"Just because a law can't be studied that doesn't put it beyond the realm of possibility. So even though the collective cannot study this law that doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist."
Absolutely, that's part of my grounds. I believe there are things which are possible that we can't necessarily study the way we want. However, that was simply showing that such a phenomena (if it existed) would be necessarily outside the scope of physical science. Nothing more.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "because that is how observable reality works" I disagree with the proposition that all reality is observable.
"All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to" I disagree, there are no observations relevant to the vast majority of mathematics, other than observations which are made entirely within the world of abstract logic.
"There is no such thing as a totally abstracted logical concept"
Why not e.g. group, monoid?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I didn't say that all reality is observable, I was commenting on that part of reality that is.
"there are no observations relevant to the vast majority of mathematics, other than observations which are made entirely within the world of abstract logic." The logic within mathematics is based in the operations and the operations are all derived from observed reality.
"Why not e.g. group, monoid?" They had to come from somewhere.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "the operations are all derived from observed reality." My point was that this isn't true. You can write a symbol and a rule for a symbol and find a myriad of consequences. At this stage the line between maths and symbolic logic is so blurry for a good reason, the distinction is purely artificial. There is no reason to suppose your idea for the symbols and their rules had to come from reality. Unless you mean in the apparently irrelevant sense that our minds are contingent on reality
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Give a child who has never studied mathematics a bag of 36 marbles and ask her to group them so that there are as many groups as there are marbles in each group. With a little trial and error, she'll find that she can make 6 groups of 6 marbles each. This is where square roots originated. Name a symbol that corresponds to an operation that can't be demonstrated without the symbol.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Name a symbol that corresponds to an operation that can't be demonstrated without the symbol." I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'demonstrated'. Do you consider a transformation of a Klein bottle to be demonstrable? It's proven that it could not be constructed in ND<4D (although infinite projections can). You can't have a meaningful symbol except one defined in terms of other symbols who do have meaning. Is this what you're getting at? How does e.g. Paraconsistent logic fit in?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Ok, are we talking about now about mathematics symbols specifically or abstract concepts in general.
A Klein Bottle is not, itself, a logic concept but the end result of a mathematical process.
Paraconsistent logic doesn't fit in here because I thought we were talking about how mathematics relates to logic in this thread.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "Paraconsistent logic doesn't fit in here because I thought we were talking about how mathematics relates to logic in this thread." Well, it is still a type of logic useful to mathematicians in proofs, but we can certainly leave it out and stick to clearer examples.
"A Klein Bottle is not, itself, a logic concept but the end result of a mathematical process." Surely the end result of a mathematical process is always expressible as a logic concept (if not considered one as-is)?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrMonkeyspanner Whatever. I really don't see where this is going.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 ""Why not e.g. group, monoid?" They had to come from somewhere." Well, for example, the idea of groups came from the idea of symmetry. However, no observation in they physical world could ever change the definition of a group. Where it came from is irrelevant to the fact that what it is now and the proofs associated with groups cannot change for the sake of any future observations about real world symmetry.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I'm not suggesting the real world changes the definition of a group, I'm saying that the definition comes from reality. You say this is irrelevant but this is the point I've been trying to make. Logic is derived from our observations of reality.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "You say this is irrelevant but this is the point I've been trying to make." Apologies, I do not see how that ideas in mathematics or logic ultimately originated from real world experience (which we both agree) affects the truth of "All the abstract logic in the world is useless if you don't have an observation to relate it to" where this part of our debate started. Except that if it is a given that the abstract logic is from experience, then relation to observation is automatic.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "ultimately originated from real world experience" I should clarify. A mathematician now can write down symbols and how they are related. E.g. Hoffstadter's MU system. This is demonstrable but in symbols only since it is only defined in symbols. Even though to understand what the hell he's doing, you would need to have a real world concept of 'sentence' and 'alphabet'. Does this make my position any clearer?
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner "Does this make my position any clearer?" To relate this further, that sense of depending on reality must be given for any logic. One thing I disagree with is that the results of any given logic must be related back to reality to either have meaning or be held true. The premises from which I constructed my argument for the supernatural origin are all strongly grounded in reality, however the conclusion cannot (as a result of that logic) be directly accessed by our experience.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner So what good is it?
I'm not trying to be rude, it's just that, aside from patting yourself on the back for thinking up a real cool idea, how can you or anyone else benefit from this argument?
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13 "aside from patting yourself on the back for thinking up a real cool idea, how can you or anyone else benefit from this argument?"
Do you mean the argument for my definition of physical object? Or argument for the 'origin' being necessarily beyond study by physical sciences? The former is well known, the latter not so much so. There are several important consequences of the latter. 1) people who have faith that science will explain that are IMO waiting for the impossible 2) ..3)...
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner I was speaking of the latter. I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner No, not really.
You seem to be defending a very rigidly defined concept of logic and I'm being very general and unspecific.
It's as if I'm saying "Building began as mud huts with thatched roofs." and you point to a skyscraper and ask "Show me the mud hut that that started out as?"
We're not talking about the same thing.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
"It's as if I'm saying "Building began as mud huts with thatched roofs." and you point to a skyscraper and ask "Show me the mud hut that that started out as?""
I like that, and may have to steal it as an example in future... The funny thing is, I thought you were pointing to the city of maths and saying show me something which couldn't have come from a mud hut!
I think you're correct that we're arguing on the same side from slightly different approaches.
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Hmmm.
Maybe we've been arguing the same side of this debate and we've just been talking past each other.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You said, "If they are dependent on matter and aren't obeyed, name one instance where these Laws have been broken." Ok, are you really that stupid?
Do you "obey" the law of gravity? Can you choose to "disobey" the law of gravity? Do you not understand that the type of laws we are talking about are not legislative statutes that can be accepted or dismissed at will? Matter does not obey logic because logic is not something that can be obeyed.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Asking a question like, 'why is the universe logical?' is like asking 'why is a ball spherical?'. What other shape would a ball be? If you had a ball that wasn't spherical would it still be a ball? Do the think balls obey their sphericalness?
Reality has properties. We recognize those properties and call some of them logical and we give them the label 'law'. But, just because we call them laws doesn't mean they can be broken. Nor do they have any authority. They just are.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 Oh one more thing. I notice that you've completely ignored my questions. So I've decided that it's safe to say that you must find them impossible to respond to and, as such, is a clear indication that your worldview is flawed and inferior to my own.
If you choose to continue to ignore this issue I will assume that you acknowledge this to be the case and agree with my conclusion.
tiggster13 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JesusforLife2 You said, "Typical question begging from an atheist concerning his irrational Naturalism." That is an ad hom.
Now, why don't you back up your bs with some answers: Define and describe what an uncaused cause is and how one could possibly exist. And, while you're at it, explain how something that isn't physical can directly cause an event to happen.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@tiggster13
"explain how something that isn't physical can directly cause an event to happen."
It's no longer bound by physical laws, I presume by event you mean a change involving energy in space-time. What do you mean by 'explain how'? You seem to be asking a loaded question. What class of non-physical explanation would you accept? The only logical answer to your question seems to be "a process such that the laws of physics remain consistent".
MrMonkeyspanner 1 year ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Yes, you are absolutely right on all counts.
I really wasn't expecting any answers from JfL2 because any valid answer that he could supply would most likely contradict his idea of what god is.
tiggster13 1 year ago
@JesusforLife2 You said, "The problem isn't one of ignorance, but one of impossibility for Naturalism. "
Yeah, I'm sure it seems impossible to you. Why else would you invent a god to solve it for you? But there has to be an answer to the origin of the universe. Do you really think your big, bearded hobgoblin is in any way a reasonable explanation? How many times does science and naturalism have to prove you wrong before you're willing to let go of your delusions?
tiggster13 1 year ago
Cosmological argument- the most shameless tautology going.
mahoolahoo 1 year ago
You say there are no infinites which means God cannot be infinite.
So where did God come from?
mritalyboy2000 1 year ago
@mritalyboy2000 please re-watch this video again. at 2:40 "actual infinite's cannot exist in the physical word" The god hypothesis is transcends the physical word.
but for you, if you want to critizice the first uncaused caused, and say it is not god, you have to still give an hypothesis and not just plea ignorant.
(its become so incredibly irritating to hear atheist object to the god hypothesis and never have an answer for anything)
kilerspartin 1 year ago
@kilerspartin They'll accept any answer that doesnt involve a concious entity aka God
JesusforLife2 1 year ago
this is faulty logic
xxredwolfxx1 1 year ago
@xxredwolfxx1 how? because it conflict with your presupposed world view?
kilerspartin 1 year ago
@kilerspartin no because it stated that if something exists then god created it, which is faulty logic, things can exists and god didnt create it. it starts with the assumption of what it is trying to prove is already true and that is why it is faulty
xxredwolfxx1 1 year ago