What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

No. Proved false because, if it is true, a contradiction occurs.

So what about nothing creating something?.. are you saying that that isn't a contradiction?

[onewheeldave]

Proved false because because it would be nonsensical to believe it was true?.. yes!?

 

No-one has put forward a logical explanation for it either. Would you care to try?

 

... Sorry.. but when did anyone present proof that B) is true?

 

So let get this straight: Possibility A) has been proved wrong because there's no logic to it.. yes?. Possibility B) has been proved right because there's no logic to possibility A).. regardless of the FACT!! that there's no logic to possibility B).. go figure.

 

But you're forgetting, first, we need to disregard the FACT!! that there is no logic to possibility B) in order to prove it logically true:hihi:

 

No!.. because neither can be proved?. But since you believe possibility B) has been proved.. by all means present that proof.

 

The proof was presented many pages ago

 

Danot- there's no point whatsoever trying to discuss this with you, you simply do not have the ability to follow the logic, sorry, but it's a waste of my time to try to rephrase what is actually a very simple logical argument, over and over again.

[danot]

The proof was presented many pages ago

 

Danot- there's no point whatsoever trying to discuss this with you, you simply do not have the ability to follow the logic, sorry, but it's a waste of my time to try to rephrase what is actually a very simple logical argument, over and over again.

It's a flawed argument that doesn't conform to logic. You know where you're going wrong don't you?.. you're accepting the only available option has truth, regardless of the flaws that undermine it.

[onewheeldave]

It's a flawed argument that doesn't conform to logic. You know where you're going wrong don't you?.. you're accepting the only available option has truth, regardless of the flaws that undermine it.

 

 

Seriously- do some research into logic and how it applies to arguments. Currently, whenever you enter into discussions like this one, your inability to understand or follow rational logic-based arguments is always going to end up with you feeling frustrated.

 

Everyone who can follow rational logic-based arguments will quickly cease to bother trying to discuss these things with you, once they've sussed out that you're not understanding what they're saying.

[HeadingNorth]

So what about nothing creating something?.. are you saying that that isn't a contradiction?

 

That is not a contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when an argument shows that something must be both true, and false.

 

The assumption that "if something exists, it must have a cause" leads to the conclusion that something exists without having a cause, which contradicts the original assumption. Ergo, the original assumption cannot be true, because if it were true it would also be false.

 

The assumption that "something can exist without having a cause" does not lead to any such logical contradiction. Since it is the only alternative to the one proven false, it must be true.

[danot]

Seriously- do some research into logic and how it applies to arguments. Currently, whenever you enter into discussions like this one, your inability to understand or follow rational logic-based arguments is always going to end up with you feeling frustrated.

 

Everyone who can follow rational logic-based arguments will quickly cease to bother trying to discuss these things with you, once they've sussed out that you're not understanding what they're saying.

I'll bare that in mind.

[danot]

That is not a contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when an argument shows that something must be both true, and false.

 

The assumption that "if something exists, it must have a cause" leads to the conclusion that something exists without having a cause, which contradicts the original assumption. Ergo, the original assumption cannot be true, because if it were true it would also be false.

 

The assumption that "something can exist without having a cause" does not lead to any such logical contradiction. Since it is the only alternative to the one proven false, it must be true.

It's a fallacy HN.

[plekhanov]

So do I, That's why I find the unsupported scientific presumptions which conceited scientists are using to support their arrogant claims that the universe most probably wasn't created, but rather just sprang into existence, deeply flawed

Yet again my mind is boggled by the incredible lack of self awareness necessary for someone privileged enough to live in our society, which in so many ways is only made possible by science, using the internet of all things to try and attack the validity of science.

 

Not only do you have no understanding of logic or basic scientific concepts (never mind the highly advanced ones you're trying to debate) but you don't even seem to realise that you're only able to post your attacks upon science on this forum because science works. Works so well in fact that in the few centuries we've had the scientific method it has enabled humanity to soar far above the level all those millennia dominated the instinctive, intuitive, ignorance you prefer.

[HeadingNorth]

It's a fallacy HN.

 

Merely claiming it is a fallacy is worthless. If you can find a flaw in the logical reasoning, point to it, otherwise the conclusion stands. It doesn't make sense according to human experience - but why should it? All human experience takes place inside the Universe, and the rules that apply inside it don't necessarily apply outside of it.

[Obelix]

It's a fallacy HN.

 

It's not a fallacy because you cannot understand it.

 

If you want to show it as a fallacy point out where the logical error in the reasoning is - it's the only way you can do so.