Moderator: Community Team
The religious argument is always a variant of "Can't you see how beautiful and complex the world is? There must be a creator!"AndyDufresne wrote:Quick, so we've made 100 pages and nearly 1500 posts. Have we solved everything yet?
--Andy
Well apparently they've put it all down on some golden tablets. No, you can't see the tablets. only the Great Badger's Chosen Ones can see the tablets.crispybits wrote:What are they saying jones? Maybe we should write it down in a book....
Sure I did. The fact that you may disagree with me doesn't mean I didn't attempt to show what the flaws in the argument were. This is the original statement I objected to:MeDeFe wrote:You never managed to say what the holes were, though.Metsfanmax wrote:But, sometimes it's intellectually enjoyable to find holes in atheist/religious arguments, and this was one of those times.
My argument was that a causal universe cannot arise from an acausal state, so if we have causality now, we've always had it. I don't see how much simpler the argument could get. When I made this argument, crispybits made the argumentative equivalent of stomping his/her feet and saying "stop turning this into a physics experiment." All I was doing was disputing the initial claim, but crispybits made it out to be some sort of unfair argument instead of just a reasoned response to the assumption in the main argument. As of yet, crispybits has not gone to any lengths to defend the original claim (that causality doesn't need to exist prior to the universe) against my claim that if causality exists now, it has always existed.crispybits wrote:So why assume that without the universe there is still causality? If you accept that time and space and everything else came from nothing, that nothing existed and then the universe existed, then causality does not need to extend to the cause of the universe, because the very first natural event, the universe actually beginning to exist, needs no cause. Causality does not exist to act until the universe already exists, and there is no need for any further "prime causer" beyond "it just is"
I'd like to address this quote first because if by, "But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other..." we are then speaking of savage barbaric acts, then let me point out that mankind in general is a savage barbaric species without the aid of religion. Religion is simply the highest point of Barbarism and savagery that mankind can invent.crispybits wrote:That's what many are motivated to oppose. Not the notion that there may or may not be a God, I'm quite happy either way with that for my own definition of God, if he exists then great, if he doesn't that's fine too. But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other. And the only way to attack that sickness of the human mentality is to attack the idea.
Wait a minute, "... the heavens, and stretched them out;"? I don't know about anyone else but gee, that sounds a lot like an expanding universe to me. And what about that bit about the earth spreading fourth? Has not science shown that the earth is larger or more "Spread Forth" now than in the past? That at one time, (perhaps 65 Million Years ago? IDK), that the earth was not so "Spread Forth" as it is today?Word of God wrote:"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it;..."
-Isaiah 42:5
I must have missed that announcement.Scientist have confirmed that the Universe is indeed comprised of three elements and only three elements
Firstly, if we have causality now, then we've always had it for as long as we've had a temporal structure to have it in. As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the mechanic of causality is meaningless without a "before" and an "after". We need time to make causality work. We didn't have time before the universe/multiverse/etc was created from nothing, therefore neither could we have had causality. So I have defended the argument, unless you want to explain how causality can exist outside of any known temporal structure.Metsfanmax wrote:Sure I did. The fact that you may disagree with me doesn't mean I didn't attempt to show what the flaws in the argument were. This is the original statement I objected to:MeDeFe wrote:You never managed to say what the holes were, though.Metsfanmax wrote:But, sometimes it's intellectually enjoyable to find holes in atheist/religious arguments, and this was one of those times.
My argument was that a causal universe cannot arise from an acausal state, so if we have causality now, we've always had it. I don't see how much simpler the argument could get. When I made this argument, crispybits made the argumentative equivalent of stomping his/her feet and saying "stop turning this into a physics experiment." All I was doing was disputing the initial claim, but crispybits made it out to be some sort of unfair argument instead of just a reasoned response to the assumption in the main argument. As of yet, crispybits has not gone to any lengths to defend the original claim (that causality doesn't need to exist prior to the universe) against my claim that if causality exists now, it has always existed.crispybits wrote:So why assume that without the universe there is still causality? If you accept that time and space and everything else came from nothing, that nothing existed and then the universe existed, then causality does not need to extend to the cause of the universe, because the very first natural event, the universe actually beginning to exist, needs no cause. Causality does not exist to act until the universe already exists, and there is no need for any further "prime causer" beyond "it just is"
In addition, I made the clear point that "nothing" existing doesn't mean there were no rules (like causality) or physical laws (like the gravitational force), it just meant there was no matter or energy. When I defeated crispybits' argument (bad by his/her own omission), there was no further response. I think that both of these are gaping holes in the argument. I don't see how one could argue that they have been logically defended.
I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?jonesthecurl wrote:I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.
BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?Viceroy63 wrote:Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.
Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."
Also; What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine? That falls outside of the three?
So now you have science without scientists?BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------
Let's work with your assumptions for a minute here:Viceroy63 wrote:I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?jonesthecurl wrote:I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.
Viceroy63 wrote:Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.
Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."
Also; What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine? That falls outside of the three?
The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.crispybits wrote: Firstly, if we have causality now, then we've always had it for as long as we've had a temporal structure to have it in. As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the mechanic of causality is meaningless without a "before" and an "after". We need time to make causality work. We didn't have time before the universe/multiverse/etc was created from nothing, therefore neither could we have had causality. So I have defended the argument, unless you want to explain how causality can exist outside of any known temporal structure.
The problem with this line of attack is that you seem to be interpreting creationist claims how you want so that you can then shoot them down. Where is it in the Bible that God created "everything from nothing?" The first line of Genesis isI got pissed because you kept saying "well the multiverse caused it/explains it/etc" ignoring the fact I repeatedly said this was about "God created everything from nothing" and the multiverse counts as part of everything.
How could you possibly insist that there was "nothing" before this creation event? What if the creation is really just God seeding our universe in some sort of multiverse structure? The creatio ex nihilio argument may be upheld by some Christians who are particularly out of date on their science, but it's not in the Bible and so therefore not really part of the Christian canon. Attacking it and then claiming that you have defeated the Christian argument for God is not correct.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I never made any of those assumptions. I simply argued that causality is qualitatively different from physical laws of nature, and so therefore to group it with those physical laws and say that they're all the same and so none of them could have existed is a fallacy. Regarding time, I also said that it could exist outside of our own universe, and there's nothing that can dispute that. Regarding natural laws, I didn't even say anything like that.Then you said we shouldn't add extra assumptions about stuff we can't know, and then assumed that causality was some sort of super-rule, that time exists outside of our known temporal dimensions, and that natural laws can exist without a nature to act upon. All of which are not only assumptions not based on any evidence, but they're also pretty fundamental and game changing assumptions.
Surely it's not. The entire basis of your argument has been this consistent claim that nothing existed prior to the universe, but there is absolutely no basis for this claim, either on the religious side or the atheist side. You're the only one actually defending an unprovable claim. I'm just throwing some speculations your way to show you why the claim is indefensible.It's like me doing a thought experiment on whether a theoretical particle would have an effect on a magnetic field, and you coming along and not only trashing the experiment by throwing a bunch of other hypothesised but unproven effects of magnetism on the particles in and saying "well what about the effects all these could have" but then saying that my conclusion must be false because I can't prove the theoretical particle in the first place and all your unproven hypotheses disprove it but you don't need to offer any proof for yours because you win the argument *smugface* and wandering off. Effective debating style you have there...
First of all Science and Scientist do observe the work of a Creators hand in the Universe but simply choose to ignore what is plainly obvious. Just like some believers choose to ignore the evidence of science. But the Creator's signature is all over the cosmos and can be seen by those who are willing to take a really good look with an unbiased mind.Timminz wrote:Let's work with your assumptions for a minute here:Viceroy63 wrote:I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?jonesthecurl wrote:I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.
Viceroy63 wrote:Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.
Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."
Also; What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine? That falls outside of the three?
Scientists have not observed anything other than time, space, and matter; therefore no other elements of the universe exist.
Scientists have not observed a creator, therefore no creator exists.
Okay, back to reality now:
Energy.
We ignore what is not relevant to our work. Whether or not there was a design to the universe has no bearing on our activities; since we cannot access the knowledge of said creator, it is a waste of our time to speculate on what he may or may not have done. As usual, we will continue with an empirical study of nature instead of a metaphysical one. It is meaningless to impugn scientists for not applying metaphysics to a purely empirical discipline; it just misses the point of what we do. Unless and until your god sends down a handbook describing physical laws in a way that we can clearly understand make predictions from, your god is irrelevant to our work.Viceroy63 wrote: First of all Science and Scientist do observe the work of a Creators hand in the Universe but simply choose to ignore what is plainly obvious.
On the other hand, our work is not irrelevant to you. Presumably you take advantage of modern technological conveniences like computers, refrigerators and automobiles. Scientists and engineers made that happen; God didn't send down an instruction manual for how to build an air conditioner. I'll only take seriously someone who "ignores the evidence of science" if they're living off the grid, completely free of modern technology.Viceroy63 wrote:Just like some believers choose to ignore the evidence of science.
Believe me when I say that your refrigerator will continue to keep your food cold; it will do so whether you understand it or not.Viceroy63 wrote:Believe me when I say that He is your God also and in the Final Judgment;
You will come to know this!
So you want me to prove that time didn't exist? The claim I was presented with (more on that point later) is that there is nothing and then God created everything. I merely took it at face value.Metsfanmax wrote:The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.
Look at this:Metsfanmax wrote:The problem with this line of attack is that you seem to be interpreting creationist claims how you want so that you can then shoot them down. Where is it in the Bible that God created "everything from nothing?" The first line of Genesis is
How could you possibly insist that there was "nothing" before this creation event? What if the creation is really just God seeding our universe in some sort of multiverse structure? The creatio ex nihilio argument may be upheld by some Christians who are particularly out of date on their science, but it's not in the Bible and so therefore not really part of the Christian canon. Attacking it and then claiming that you have defeated the Christian argument for God is not correct.In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is what I was responding to. If you actually read it you would have known that. You took my assertions out of context and then attacked me for claiming to destroy all christian metaphysics when in reality I was only responding to one poster and taking their assumptions and just running with them. The fact that their assumption was flawed to begin with is not a fault of my argument going forward, because I specifically said that I was going to suspend disbelief and run with their assertion and see where it went. Like I said it's easier to make someone come round to a differing point of view if you lead them along a path instead of just shouting at them from very far away.Viceroy63 wrote:If we put things into context? Then lets leave Alexander out of this. Why go off into another tangent.
The point is that creation was made out of Nothing because there was nothing before creation. That Adam was made from the dust and then Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs is besides the point.
How did they know that the creation was basically made from nothing? That is the point!
It seems to me that this had to have been revealed knowledge.
Firstly, you have never said HOW causality is qualitatively different. Why is something that is a temporal feature above and external to the laws of space and time?Metsfanmax wrote:I never made any of those assumptions. I simply argued that causality is qualitatively different from physical laws of nature, and so therefore to group it with those physical laws and say that they're all the same and so none of them could have existed is a fallacy. Regarding time, I also said that it could exist outside of our own universe, and there's nothing that can dispute that. Regarding natural laws, I didn't even say anything like that.
Like I said, I consider causality to be a much different construction than matter and energy. When people generally say "before the universe, there was nothing" I think they're generally talking about matter that we're used to interact with. They can't mean nothing because there's still God, and that doesn't mean the rules (e.g. the laws of physics) didn't apply before the universe; it just meant that there was nothing existing to obey the rules.
But you didn't argue that natural laws could exist without a nature to regulate no?I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.
That looks suspiciously like you're saying that there is a time beyond our universe/multiverse. Any evidence for that?What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.
We shouldn't say anything about stuff we can't observe.Humans should rightfully be humbled by both the scale of the universe relative to us, and what we have learned in spite of that. It should not fill us with the arrogance to suggest that we can know more than that about which we observe.
The entire basis for the thought experiment has been a claim, made by a christian, that there was nothing before God made everything. I do not subscribe to that claim, I do not validate that claim, and I do not try to defend that claim. I advance the experiment in order to try and lead someone (probably not the claimant themseles but maybe someone reading) to realise why that premise is flawed. You then wander in and piss all over the experiment by ignoring the process and jumping straight to the answer we both agree on. Like walking into a cinema while the coming attractions trailers are still on and shouting out what happens at the end of the film. Thanks for that.....Metsfanmax wrote:The entire basis of your argument has been this consistent claim that nothing existed prior to the universe, but there is absolutely no basis for this claim, either on the religious side or the atheist side. You're the only one actually defending an unprovable claim. I'm just throwing some speculations your way to show you why the claim is indefensible.
Yes, but your interpretation of what was meant by "nothing" was your own, and you selected it so as to win an argument rather than considering all possible meanings. If we interpret "nothing" simply as the absence of material things, but not necessarily the absence of any rules, or the absence of space and time, then the whole basis for your argument falls apart. You arbitrarily decided that "nothing" meant that there was no framework for matter and energy to exist in, no time and space. But these are constructions to begin with. That's a choice; it doesn't follow from the definition of the word. That's because time, space, physical laws, etc. are all immaterial. If you can prove your argument without making the assumption that no rules or physical laws existed prior to the creation of the universe, then I will concede that your argument is a valid response to this creationist argument.crispybits wrote: So you want me to prove that time didn't exist? The claim I was presented with (more on that point later) is that there is nothing and then God created everything. I merely took it at face value.
I tried to explain it, but I don't think I did very well, because it's hard to describe in words. The main idea, though, is that space and time are simply a backdrop on which events occur (in general relativity, we see that the backdrop is affected by matter and energy, but nonetheless, it is still an arbitrary construction that we use to explain how things work -- it doesn't say anything real about material objects). Physical force laws, and conservation laws, describe how dynamical processes play out on top of that backdrop. Causality is qualitatively different because it is not a rule that tells matter and energy how to move on the backdrop of space and time; you could have a perfectly consistent set of physical force laws without causality. Causality gives a particular ordering to events, and that ordering is more in line with the nature of how we think about time itself. One way to think about it is that causality is what we mean by time: time has no fundamental meaning in physics, as none of the physical forces make reference to time. Time is a way of constructing a macroscopic order for events. If the universe were not causal, there would be no need for the construction of time, because it would not be possible to assign a logical sequence of events in a particular order, which is a requisite for an understanding of time.Firstly, you have never said HOW causality is qualitatively different. Why is something that is a temporal feature above and external to the laws of space and time?
I argued that they logically could, absent any evidence to the contrary. It's a purely speculative claim, as are all these other metaphysical arguments. It is not meant to say anything deep about the nature of the universe; just designed to show that you need to justify your assumptions about the way nature works. You oughtn't make grand claims about whether physical laws can be made sense of, absent space and time, if we can't know one way or the other.Secondly, look at these:
Like I said, I consider causality to be a much different construction than matter and energy. When people generally say "before the universe, there was nothing" I think they're generally talking about matter that we're used to interact with. They can't mean nothing because there's still God, and that doesn't mean the rules (e.g. the laws of physics) didn't apply before the universe; it just meant that there was nothing existing to obey the rules.But you didn't argue that natural laws could exist without a nature to regulate no?I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.
When one uses the word "perhaps," one is usually suggesting a possibility and not a claim of truth.That looks suspiciously like you're saying that there is a time beyond our universe/multiverse. Any evidence for that?What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.
I don't care whether you are "pissed." If you can't have a logical debate without getting angry, then I recommend not engaging in any.In the meantime you accuse me of logical inconsistency while your arguments make you the one saying we shouldn't argue about hypothetical unknowables but if we did your unknowables beat my unknowables because.... well just because.
And then you wonder why I'm pissed?
Why should we assume that anything did exist prior to the creation of the universe? If we're going to do that then why not just assume God exists and he made it all?If you can prove your argument without making the assumption that no rules or physical laws existed prior to the creation of the universe, then I will concede that your argument is a valid response to this creationist argument.
It is the best I can do, because what one means by "nothing" is actually the central point in this discussion. Did you ask Viceroy if that's what he meant by "nothing" before you attacked his argument?crispybits wrote:Interpretation of "nothing"? Is that really the best you can do? Nothing is a pretty much non-interperative concept. It means nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no greater structure in which they can all exist, no multiverse, no anything. Nothing. To argue a different interpretation of nothing means you are arguing that nothing is something. Is this really what you mean?
Did you before you made a bunch of huge fanciful assumptions to attempt to defend it?Did you ask Viceroy if that's what he meant by "nothing" before you attacked his argument?
It was obviously (even to you, since you attempted a reply) an answer to your question.Viceroy63 wrote:Energy exist in Time, Space and Matter so again, what does that one word answer imply?Timminz wrote:Energy.Viceroy63 wrote:What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine?
