ATTN PORKENBEANS

[OnlyAmbrose]

Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

No, porky, it won't, because of the problems of an uncaused cause or infinite regression. Math doesn't factor into either of them.

"Logic" is a manmade way of demonstrating things and understanding the world. "What we are able to perceive of logic" IS logic, because logic is a man-made creation. What I am looking for is a concession that the laws of logic as we know them are apparently breakable because logic does not allow us to understand existence.

I'd have to disagree. Hundreds of years ago, with the current available evidence and science of the day, it was logical to believe in a flat earth. Now it is not. Reaching a logical conclusion on something is based on your current evidence available, and more evidence is coming in all the time, and old evidence is being disproven. Also, logic as in math equations can sometimes contradict what seems to be logic when just looking at something.

I'm going to ignore the historical falsehood that western civilization has ever believed that the earth was flat. Let's assume they DID believe the earth was flat.

No, it was never "logical" to believe that the earth was flat. It was a conclusion they reached through empirical evidence, not logic. They said "The earth looks flat; therefore, it is." That is not a logical conclusion, that is an empirical scientific conclusion.

[CrazyAnglican]

It seems you are all greeing, but going to great links to not be seen as such. Whatever explanation we come to as to the beginning of the Universe will defy this particular rule of logic; just as evidence to the contrary defied the idea (which was not a rule of logic; it was merely a supposition based on observations) that the Earth was flat.

If it seems logical when we/if we discover it will be irrelevant. Whatever explanation there may be will have to defy this rule of logic based on the argument OA gave. Come on guys you're not agreeing to go to church. Just listen to what he's saying and see how you're saying the exact same thing from the opposite perspective.

[rob8888]

First of all, I wasn't talking about "western civilization" in particular, I was referring to the Greeks and other earlier civilizations. But besides that, it was just an example. Science has been wrong many times before.

And it was logical to believe in a flat earth. There was little evidence for a flat earth, and no evidence for a round one, making flat earth the more logical choice. Also,

They said "The earth looks flat; therefore, it is." That is not a logical conclusion, that is an empirical scientific conclusion.

That's called observation, and is a common scientific method. Without the concept of gravity, the flat earth was more logical given the evidence. Think about two theories:
1)Humans exist on a flat plane, and celestial bodies go above it.

2)Humans live on a tiny ball floating in space, yet some of them live on the bottom of it without falling off.

Given the knowledge of the time, it was more logical.

[CrazyAnglican]

Case in point:

They said "The earth looks flat; therefore, it is." That is not a logical conclusion, that is an empirical scientific conclusion.

OA says quite rightly that the idea of a flat earth was based on observation (empiricism).

That's called observation, and is a common scientific method. Without the concept of gravity, the flat earth was more logical given the evidence. Think about two theories:
1)Humans exist on a flat plane, and celestial bodies go above it.

2)Humans live on a tiny ball floating in space, yet some of them live on the bottom of it without falling off.

Given the knowledge of the time, it was more logical.

Rob8888 counters ,also rightly, that the idea that the earth is flat was based on observation (empiricism). Then goes on to say it was "more logical" (meaning it made more sense, not that believeing anything else defies any actual rule of logic).

I'm liking this job of translating English into English.

[Artimis]

I've come late to this thread and reading all the other posts was starting to give me a headache.

Firstly you can't effectively prove the non-existence/absence of anything, that means to say: If you want to prove that something doesn't exist you must check everything, everywhere. So, that would be all matter in the universe throughout the entire universe...... good luck.

Secondly there is a grain of truth in every myth, by that I mean: Jesus Christ is a historical fact, the man did exist about 2000 years ago, there is archaeological evidence to support this. My personal wild speculation is that we had some interstellar visitors here on earth at sometime in our past and they left quite an impression on us with their advanced technology. Naturally we could not explain this as anything other than magical or miraculous at the time and it's stuck.

Thirdly we cannot rule out the existence of God just because we can't see him/her, the rationale for this is: It would be arrogant and utterly unreasonable to assume that something doesn't exist just because we can't see, hear, feel or otherwise determine the presence of any given subject. The nature of science and reason is to assume nothing and question everything at least once.

I have my own personal beliefs which no doubt someone would be champing at the bit to shoot down if I was to reveal them here. The nature of God is still open to interpretation in my mind. But if we are a contrived construction following a prescribed design rather than an accident, then I'm not so sure I'd want to ask the designer what my the purpose of my existence is, because I might not like the answer. Knowledge is both power and pain, how powerful you get depends on how much pain you can take.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hi Artemis,

So what is your take on the position that existence defies the law of causation as stated, quite more eloquently than I'd be able to do, by OA? It seems Porky, mp, and Rob agree, albeit they don't seem to want to commit for whatever reason.

[jonesthecurl]

OK - lots of talk since I last posted - and yes, this keyboard does sound like an ultra-fast game of Mah Jong.

I may have misunderstood the intent of the OP - I thought the idea was to show that a logical examination of the fact that the universe exists forces us to posit the existence of a god/some gods/ intelligent design. I thought that the idea was that logic alone would show this to be so, provided only that we allowed the axiom "Something can't come from nothing", or "everything has a cause". (incidentally, I'm a good typist - WHY do I have to keep going back and correcting that word from "cuase"?)

My point was that examining this axiom gives us some other possibilities, just as questioning Euclid's axioms ("parallel lines never meet", "the shortest distance between two points is a stright line", etc) gave us new mathematics which, in our post-Einsteinian understanding, turn out to fit the universe better than Euclid at any level past the obvious-to-our-eyes.

Now, at this point, as I understand it, Ambrose is making no claim other than that. He is not invoking any Holy writings or any particular religion at this point. Similarly I am claiming nothing other than that "Something cannot come from nothing" is not necessarily solid.

"Show me something that ever came from nothing" some have said. To this I reply, some things only happen once. You could write the most detailed of accounts of every sexual encounter I have ever had after a certain midsummer night at Stonehenge*, and you will never record the loss of my virginity [or indeed that of the lady in question, though you could safely go back some way further in your account of her]. Therefore, I could claim that "having sex doesn't make you lose your virginity".

So to recap where I stand from a logical point of view: (sorry, I was swept up in memories there for a minute) - It is possible that the universe has no beginning because it has always been there. If this is not so, there was a beginning which it is perfectly logical to say had no cause. There was no time prior to that beginning (by definition) in which to place a cause.

Multiplying hypotheses by imagining an extra, "spiritual" dimension which is somehow outside of space and time and yet is somehow neccessary to one's world view seems to me uneccesary and, yes, illogical.

Note (both rabid creationists and rabid big bang/evolution fans) that at this point in the discussion, no discussion of any particular religion nor of any particular scientific theory has been needed. Thus far we are operating on pure logic, logic which would describe any possible universe, not just the one we happen to find ourselves in.

*-and I'd buy a copy of that book - first, 'cos it'd have some really good, and some really funny bits, in it. Secondly, 'cos it'd straighten out some issues on which I'm confused due to things being a bit vague at the time.

[porkenbeans]

Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

No, porky, it won't, because of the problems of an uncaused cause or infinite regression. Math doesn't factor into either of them.

"Logic" is a manmade way of demonstrating things and understanding the world. "What we are able to perceive of logic" IS logic, because logic is a man-made creation. What I am looking for is a concession that the laws of logic as we know them are apparently breakable because logic does not allow us to understand existence.

Actually, there are scientists predicting a return to a singularity.

I would ask you to cite them, but to do so would be pointless because I'm sure you'd just direct me to google; and it has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Given that science, as you stated earlier, is not bound by logic, and given that I am only asking you to concede that existence violates the laws of logic, what scientists are proposing isn't particularly relevant.

You are not getting my point. What we understand today in the way of logic, is not all there is to logic. We do not yet fully understand the all complexities that are included. Imagine if someone held a painting flat against your nose. You can't see much of the painting. In fact you may not even realize that it is a painting at all. You have to look at it from more than just the one perspective if you are to determine what it truly is, or is not. Right now we have our nose up against the painting and are unable to see the real picture. So, it would be illogical to say that existence is not logical. For us to understand the answer to your question, is like asking a chimp how a light bulb works. He simply does not have the intellectual tools required to figure it out. We are just like that chimp. We just do not yet have the understanding. But if we study it long enough, we will slowly start to understand how it works. It may take us a million years or more, but because of our inquisitive nature, We will eventually find the answer to your question.

[Artimis]

Well C.A., our best estimates put the universe at 16 billion years old. To find an adequate answer to the question of existence defying the law of causation will take significantly longer than that.

My take is(I can't prove this by the way it's just my opinion), the universe came from somewhere, causation is absolute, everything must have a cause. Until someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, that will be my position. I favour the 'Big Bounce' as the most plausible explanation of our existence. Testing for proof of that scenario does seem impossible at this point, as any record of a pre-existing universe would surely have been wiped out be the near infinite heat and pressure prior to the re-emergence of this present universe.

When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer.

There are things we still can't explain, yet. I don't think it's possible to run out of mysteries to explore, there will always be new worlds to conquer. On a personal note I hope that there will always be mystery, something 'magical' if you will, for a life without mystery will be a less colourful one.

[jonesthecurl]

Well C.A., our best estimates put the universe at 16 billion years old. To find an adequate answer to the question of existence defying the law of causation will take significantly longer than that.

My take is(I can't prove this by the way it's just my opinion), the universe came from somewhere, causation is absolute, everything must have a cause. Until someone can present me with evidence to the contrary, that will be my position. I favour the 'Big Bounce' as the most plausible explanation of our existence. Testing for proof of that scenario does seem impossible at this point, as any record of a pre-existing universe would surely have been wiped out be the near infinite heat and pressure prior to the re-emergence of this present universe.

When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer.

There are things we still can't explain, yet. I don't think it's possible to run out of mysteries to explore, there will always be new worlds to conquer. On a personal note I hope that there will always be mystery, something 'magical' if you will, for a life without mystery will be a less colourful one.

The Big Bounce (which I called the Big Bang/Big Suck theory) is an example of there being no beginning. each bounce is preceeded by and followed by another. there is no reason to imagine a first or last Bounce.

[Artimis]

The Big Bounce (which I called the Big Bang/Big Suck theory) is an example of there being no beginning. each bounce is preceeded by and followed by another. there is no reason to imagine a first or last Bounce.

But what came before that? What triggered this cyclical bounce process? Is it never ending? More importantly how are we ever going to measure this and gather evidence in the first place?

I think the outward push of one of these bounces will exceed the inward pull of gravity, one day. Hah! One day?! A process that progresses over a period of billions of years, 'one day' simply doesn't do it justice! However the point I'm making is, something triggered this process in the first place.

Look at the water cycle on this planet for instance: The sun heats the oceans, water vapour rises(clouds), the water vapour travels along and cools down then drops back down as rain, which then flows back into the sea via rivers and streams. This process might seem to be without a beginning, but the water came from somewhere as surely as the sun that powers it came from somewhere. We have pretty good and plausible working theories for how this came about.

Finding a plausible theory for the existence of the universe is much bigger challenge. It's out there, we just got to look for it.

[jonesthecurl]

Hmm: obviously not being clear enough.

Forget bangs and sucks, or any other model of the universe. For any possible universe, there are two logical possibilities:

NO beginning. (Obvious Question 1:What came before? more of the same. Obvious Question 2: What came before that? See answer to Obvious Question 1).

OR

A beginning. (Obvious question 1: What came before ? Answer: weren't you listening? there is no before. This is when Time itself began. There are no prior events or causes. Obvious Question 2: What made it start? See answer to Obvious Question 1.)

[OnlyAmbrose]

Now, at this point, as I understand it, Ambrose is making no claim other than that. He is not invoking any Holy writings or any particular religion at this point. Similarly I am claiming nothing other than that "Something cannot come from nothing" is not necessarily solid.

You are correct. However, logic is essentially based on this idea that every effect has a cause. While it is possible that "something can come from nothing," it is certainly not logical. Whatever the explanation for the beginning of the universe is, it must be BEYOND logic. That is what I am getting at. It does not necessarily have to be God, but the laws of logic must break down, or else there would be no existence.

So to recap where I stand from a logical point of view: (sorry, I was swept up in memories there for a minute) - It is possible that the universe has no beginning because it has always been there.

That is possible; it is not logical. Again, existence MUCH defy logic. There is no explanation you could come up with that wouldn't defy logic, much like there are no two even integers which will give you an odd integer when added together.

If this is not so, there was a beginning which it is perfectly logical to say had no cause. There was no time prior to that beginning (by definition) in which to place a cause.

This is certainly not logical, logic relies on a linear time frame in which everything has an explanation that came before it. This is why logic cannot explain the beginning of the universe/time.

Multiplying hypotheses by imagining an extra, "spiritual" dimension which is somehow outside of space and time and yet is somehow neccessary to one's world view seems to me uneccesary and, yes, illogical.

I haven't made any claim of a "spiritual" dimension as of now. That is point 2, and we are still working to hammer out an agreement on point 1.

Note (both rabid creationists and rabid big bang/evolution fans) that at this point in the discussion, no discussion of any particular religion nor of any particular scientific theory has been needed. Thus far we are operating on pure logic, logic which would describe any possible universe, not just the one we happen to find ourselves in.

I would like to emphasize this, because I've been trying to say it for some time now.


And I'd also like to thank you for your thoughts jones, well thought out.

[mpjh]

logic smogic. You don't need to use the word religion to be talking about religion. Besides that, the big bounce requires that time run backwards either before or after the bounce, logic that one.

Science is an exploration and if an answer isn't "logical" given current human understanding, that doesn't mean it is wrong from a scientific point of view. So take you logicsnobbery elsewhere.

[jonesthecurl]

Staying purely in the grounds of logic, I will reiterate: it is purely through logic that my contention stands: logic itself denies the notion of causality here.

Here are several questions, which all have the same answer.

(1) What happened before time began?
(2) What is outside the physical limits of the universe?
(3) What happens after you go past infinity?
(4) What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

The answer is: don't be silly. The question is meaningless - pay particular attention to the words in italics.
There can be no "before" time, by definition.
There can be no "outside" the universe, by definition.
There can be no "after" infinity (Buzz Lightyear, please note),by definition.
There can be no "irresistable" if there is an "immovable", or vice-versa, by definition.

The fact that we can string these words into a sentence indicates nothing.

[mpjh]

Ahh, Aristotle rears his ugly head. Didn't we have enough of the philosophical reasoning through the dark ages. Logic means nothing if you don't have empirical evidence, that is what science requires, otherwise you are simply contemplating your navel.

[Backglass]

What I find amusing is that the creationists always proclaim "something cannot come from nothing!"...unless it happens to be their god making "something from nothing", and then it's perfectly OK.

[Napoleon Ier]

Not really... they say something came from a necessarily existent metaphysical entity.

[luns101]

What I find amusing is that the creationists always proclaim "something cannot come from nothing!"...unless it happens to be their god making "something from nothing", and then it's perfectly OK.

Nope, what many of us believe is that something (material stuff of the universe) cannot come from nothing, but something came from something transcendent and separate from the material of the universe...thus the root word "create"

I realize you'll claim you said the same thing but it's really a belief in an uncaused cause (not that I expect you to agree with that)

[rob8888]

What I find amusing is that the creationists always proclaim "something cannot come from nothing!"...unless it happens to be their god making "something from nothing", and then it's perfectly OK.

That actually does sound logical, because they contend nothing cannot naturally turn into something, but some supernatural force could make it happen.

As for the universe beginning, there are many scientists who believe there's more than one universe. Not in any kind of sci-fi parallel universe sense, but in there actually being different universes physically existing apart from each other. Everything might not have suddenly began with our universe. Right now we don't have the tools to find out what created the universe, and we may never have them, so god seems to be the only solution. But I don't think it's justified jumping to god as an answer just because science can't give us the answer right now.

And I believe someone made the point that life beginning naturally was illogical, and life beginning supernaturally was illogical, which is true to an extent, but look at it this way: Say there was some chemical reaction that produced the first ever living molecule. Obviously, everything about the chemical reaction would have to be so perfect that the chances of it happening are almost nothing. But the chances of it happening once over the course of a billion years is a lot more reasonable. To give an analogy, getting 10 double hits in a row with the dice on this site is very unlikely. But it will probably happen to you at least once if you play this site regularly for a year or two. It's like that, except on a much larger scale: Life beginning is a lot more unlikely than getting 10 double hits, but a billion years is a lot longer for to to happen than a year or two.

[CrazyAnglican]

Well C.A., our best estimates put the universe at 16 billion years old. To find an adequate answer to the question of existence defying the law of causation will take significantly longer than that.

Well spoken, sir. It may at that at the rate we're going.

My take is(I can't prove this by the way it's just my opinion), the universe came from somewhere, causation is absolute, everything must have a cause.

So, can we put you in the agree point 1, and let's get this discussion moving camp?

And I believe someone made the point that life beginning naturally was illogical, and life beginning supernaturally was illogical, which is true to an extent, but look at it this way: Say there was some chemical reaction that produced the first ever living molecule. Obviously, everything about the chemical reaction would have to be so perfect that the chances of it happening are almost nothing. But the chances of it happening once over the course of a billion years is a lot more reasonable. To give an analogy, getting 10 double hits in a row with the dice on this site is very unlikely. But it will probably happen to you at least once if you play this site regularly for a year or two. It's like that, except on a much larger scale: Life beginning is a lot more unlikely than getting 10 double hits, but a billion years is a lot longer for to to happen than a year or two.

Sure, but the point is that no matter how unlikely any particular idea may be, causation is violated by it. For instance causation would be useless in supporting the idea of a chemical reaction randomly resulting in life. Any experimental model set up to prove it's possibility would, in fact, have been caused by the experimenter. Nobody (on the Christian side of the argument as far as I can tell) is even approaching the idea that any God exists. OA seems to be saying that causation is absolute, and that any story or theory that attempts to explain that beginning is illogical by definition. It would have to break the law of causation.

[CrazyAnglican]

logic smogic.

So take you logicsnobbery elsewhere.

Ahh, Aristotle rears his ugly head. Didn't we have enough of the philosophical reasoning through the dark ages. Logic means nothing if you don't have empirical evidence, that is what science requires, otherwise you are simply contemplating your navel.

Given that OA has shown a willingness to show evidence for his assertions, I'm not sure where you're criticism comes from or what it amounts to. Please don't attempt tp derail the thread. If you have something of consequence to say, by all means do, but ad-hominems are certainly not called for.

[Neutrino]

OA, I agree that any answer to "what came before the universe" is illogical, simply because the question is as well. You are talking about an event with a time co-ordinate that preceeds (whatever that means, given the context) the existence of a time axis. It's like asking "What is north of the north pole?" - an inherently illogical and meaningless question. That said, I shall wait to hear the rest of your argument with great interest.

Not really... they say something came from a necessarily existent metaphysical entity.

Your ontological arguments again, right? Napoleon, I find it very interesting that you try to use logic to justify the existence of a god, when said god is explicitly defined (by Ambrose, admittedly, but it is his thread that you are posting in) to be illogical in nature.

[OnlyAmbrose]

What I find amusing is that the creationists always proclaim "something cannot come from nothing!"...unless it happens to be their god making "something from nothing", and then it's perfectly OK.

Can you indicate to me where in this thread I said that? I have not even brought up the possibility of God in this argument.

OA, I agree that any answer to "what came before the universe" is illogical, simply because the question is as well. You are talking about an event with a time co-ordinate that preceeds (whatever that means, given the context) the existence of a time axis. It's like asking "What is north of the north pole?" - an inherently illogical and meaningless question. That said, I shall wait to hear the rest of your argument with great interest.

That's more or less what I'm getting at. Because the beginning of the universe begins with an illogical event and that all points before T = 0 cannot be rationally comprehended, then we should not be surprised that the explanation for the universe is illogical, because logic cannot cope with anything preceding T = 0. That having been said, the universe must violate causation because you can't have a logical "cause" because that "cause" must precede T = 0, but logic cannot cope with anything before T = 0.

So the answer to "what caused the universe" must necessarily be illogical. Again, Christians choose one illogical explanation, and atheists do not choose any particular explanation but concede that it must be illogical.

If you're cool with that, we can shift gears into point 2.

[OnlyAmbrose]

when said god is explicitly defined (by Ambrose, admittedly, but it is his thread that you are posting in) to be illogical in nature.

I believe that God is beyond logic because God is beyond time. God being the creator of all things is also the creator of logic, thus is makes sense that God's existence violates logic.

I am not proposing this as an argument that God exists, I am just a little uncomfortable with the claim that God is "illogical by nature." God is above logic, and His existence therefore is necessarily beyond it.