What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[HeadingNorth]

nothing created God

 

If you're willing to accept the claim that something can exist without being created, you don't need to postulate God to begin with. You can simply accept the Universe as existing without being created.

 

If you are not willing to accept the claim that something can exist without being created, you cannot claim that God exists unless something created Him.

[danot]

It shows it's true in the argument that I posted- the reason I have to believe that it's not wrong is because it's a straight logical argument going from premises to conclusion and the logic is valid.

 

If I've made a mistake in the reasoning then you (or someone else here) can point it out to me and I'll admit I messed up.

 

As for your problem with scientists and their presumptions, it's not something I need to get into as the argument I presented is a matter of logic, not science.

 

Here it is again, why don't you try reading it, and, if you still think it's wrong, please do point out where the mistake is:

 

Ok- if you're going to insist that a space requires a further space to exist in, or to expand into, then you're going to require an infinite regress of such spaces.

 

The 2nd space, which contains the first one, will similarly require a 3rd space to contain it.

 

The third space will require a 4th space, with, in turn, requires a 5t, etc..etc..etc

 

That never ends- it yields an infinite heirachy of higher spaces.

 

It may be that you're OK with that, but, when it comes to actual spaces, it cannot be, because we're talking about the creation of universes and hence, the creation of each of those spaces.

 

Space no.1 cannot exist until space no.2 does, because, on your original premise, that a space must be contained within a higher space, space no.1 cannot exist until it's container (space no.2) does.

 

Space no.2, similarly, cannot exist till space no.3 does, which, in turn can't exist untill....etc...etc.

 

Space no.1, in short, cannot exist until the entire infinite sequence of higherachy's of higher spaces actually exists in it's entirety- a position which is not possible as the sequence is infinite.

 

The only logical conclusion is that your original premise, that space must be contained, is wrong- thus the opposite must be true- that space does not require a further space to contain it.[/i]

 

So- in your opinion, where's the mistake? (not with science/scientific presumption, but, with the reasoning above)

The mistake is "the unfounded presumption" that space cannot be contained.

 

Why can't space be contained?, it's no more unlikely than "nothing" having created the universe, besides, neither can be proved with any degree of certainty to be right. All we do know is that both defy logic.

 

If we are to go with the theory of "nothing" having created the universe, then what are we basing that theory on?, what are we applying our logic to?.. what are we applying our scientific knowledge to?.. we can't apply them to "nothing", because science doesn't do that.

 

So my question to you is:- why has science(and yourself) accepted a theory, based on an unfounded presumption.

[Obelix]

I refer you to post 13 where you were answered.

 

Why do you keep trolling the same line when you are given the same answer?

[danot]

I refer you to post 13 where you were answered.

 

Why do you keep trolling the same line when you are given the same answer?

How can I not give the same answer, If I'm answering the same question?.

[Obelix]

No -ones posing the question. I've got one for you though - why is it an unfounded presumption that space cannot be contained?

[Yog Sothoth]

Lol. We should all meet up, neck some magic mushrooms, and continue the discussion.

[onewheeldave]

The mistake is "the unfounded presumption" that space cannot be contained.

 

Why can't space be contained?, it's no more unlikely than "nothing" having created the universe, besides, neither can be proved with any degree of certainty to be right. All we do know is that both defy logic.

 

If we are to go with the theory of "nothing" having created the universe, then what are we basing that theory on?, what are we applying our logic to?.. what are we applying our scientific knowledge to?.. we can't apply them to "nothing", because science doesn't do that.

 

So my question to you is:- why has science(and yourself) accepted a theory, based on an unfounded presumption.

 

??!!??

 

It's not my premise.

 

In the argument, i use the opposite premise i.e. your premise that space can be contained (in a further space) and then show, using logical reasoning, that a nonsense results from that premise (i.e. that a infinite heirachy of spaces must be invoked).

 

As the logical result of that premise is nonsense, then the original premise must be false and so, the opposite of that premise must be true.

 

So, it must be true that space can exist uncontained- that's not a presumptiom- it's the logical result of making your assumption (that space must be contained) and following through the logical consequences.

 

Like i said before, why not read it and point out any mistakes you can see in the reasoning.

 

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

Ok- if you're going to insist that a space requires a further space to exist in, or to expand into, then you're going to require an infinite regress of such spaces.

 

The 2nd space, which contains the first one, will similarly require a 3rd space to contain it.

 

The third space will require a 4th space, with, in turn, requires a 5t, etc..etc..etc

 

That never ends- it yields an infinite heirachy of higher spaces.

 

It may be that you're OK with that, but, when it comes to actual spaces, it cannot be, because we're talking about the creation of universes and hence, the creation of each of those spaces.

 

Space no.1 cannot exist until space no.2 does, because, on your original premise, that a space must be contained within a higher space, space no.1 cannot exist until it's container (space no.2) does.

 

Space no.2, similarly, cannot exist till space no.3 does, which, in turn can't exist untill....etc...etc.

 

Space no.1, in short, cannot exist until the entire infinite sequence of higherachy's of higher spaces actually exists in it's entirety- a position which is not possible as the sequence is infinite.

 

The only logical conclusion is that your original premise, that space must be contained, is wrong- thus the opposite must be true- that space does not require a further space to contain it.

[pcspb1]

Lol. We should all meet up, neck some magic mushrooms, and continue the discussion.

 

I remember as a youngster, I always got into these deep and meaningful(less) conversations - usually late at night

 

Truth is, no-one knows, I can't say 'we' never will, but I can suppose not in our lifetimes - still the discussion raises a valid point which defies all current logic - we couldn't even say the universe was logical - or come to that illogical, it's our perception that defines our answers, and answers from both sides of the debate may be equally right at the same time as not.

 

As the logical result of that premise is nonsense, then the original premise must be false and so, the opposite of that premise must be true

 

Not everything abides by the laws of known logic, the original premise may be true, equally, it may not, so the opposite of that premise depends on your interpretation of the term opposite

 

I think "opposite" is a bit vague. In formal logic, there are two terms, one of which may capture what you are looking for. Here are their definitions:

contradictory: Two statements are contradictory if they cannot both be true together, and cannot both be false together. An example is "this is red" and "this is not red".

 

contrary: Two statements are contrary if they cannot both be true together, but can both be false together. An example is "this is red", "this is blue", and "this is green".

As you can see, contradictory statements divide the universe into two parts (A and not-A), so a given statement has but one contradictory. But a statement can have many contraries.

[danot]

??!!??

 

It's not my premise.

 

In the argument, i use the opposite premise i.e. your premise that space can be contained (in a further space) and then show, using logical reasoning, that a nonsense results from that premise (i.e. that a infinite heirachy of spaces must be invoked).

 

As the logical result of that premise is nonsense, then the original premise must be false and so, the opposite of that premise must be true.

No!. The opposite premise has not been proven to be true.. It's nothing more than a popular theory.

 

 

There's no reason to believe that the popular theory(your premise) is the truth. There's no reason to believe the opposite is false. The truth is:- there's no way of knowing, because as yet, we don't have the slightest idea as to how either would work.

 

Posted by Onewheeldave

So, it must be true that space can exist uncontained- that's not a presumptiom- it's the logical result of making your assumption (that space must be contained) and following through the logical consequences.

No!, it doesn't mean it must be true. How can it be true when the theory cannot be tested?.. how can either be true or false?

 

It simply means that 'space being contained, presents a major problem to our present train of thought.

 

Posted by Onewhelldave

Like i said before, why not read it and point out any mistakes you can see in the reasoning.

Your reasoning only applies to our present train of thought. IT CANNOT be applied to whether space does or does not require a further space to exist. It's ludicrous to think it could.

 

Besides, the premise behind the universe being infinate presents major problems to our present train of thought, so should we assume that that's false also?.. which by default would make the opposite true.

 

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

Posted by Onewheeldave

Ok- if you're going to insist that a space requires a further space to exist in, or to expand into, then you're going to require an infinite regress of such spaces.

 

The 2nd space, which contains the first one, will similarly require a 3rd space to contain it.

 

The third space will require a 4th space, with, in turn, requires a 5t, etc..etc..etc

 

That never ends- it yields an infinite heirachy of higher spaces.

 

It may be that you're OK with that, but, when it comes to actual spaces, it cannot be, because we're talking about the creation of universes and hence, the creation of each of those spaces.

 

Space no.1 cannot exist until space no.2 does, because, on your original premise, that a space must be contained within a higher space, space no.1 cannot exist until it's container (space no.2) does.

 

Space no.2, similarly, cannot exist till space no.3 does, which, in turn can't exist untill....etc...etc.

 

Space no.1, in short, cannot exist until the entire infinite sequence of higherachy's of higher spaces actually exists in it's entirety- a position which is not possible as the sequence is infinite.

 

The only logical conclusion is that your original premise, that space must be contained, is wrong- thus the opposite must be true- that space does not require a further space to contain it.

[Lockjaw]

Not everything abides by the laws of known logic,

 

There are further limitations. Logic is a human invention and is, therefore, also limited by the imperfections of language. An obvious example of this is the spoken sentence: "I am now lying" which can neither be the truth or a lie.

 

I think Danot's main difficulty on this thread, assuming he's not just trolling or attempting some god-justification is that he is unable to accept that human experience, knowledge and language is not advanced enough to thoroughly comprehend the nature of the universe. HeadingNorth pointed this out earlier but was, largely, ignored.