What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

No; logically shown to be false. They lead to a self-contradiction and cannot possibly true under any circumstances.

By your own admission, that doesn't necessarily have to be true. See below.

 

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 would it? All human experience takes place inside the universe, and the rules that apply inside it don't necessarily apply outside of it.

Like I pointed out to you before, in the section of your post I have bolded, where you state, in your own opinion, that we(humans)are only capable of drawing conclusions based on our human experience - which as been my argument throughout, ironically.

 

You go on to say that, there could well be an "outside" to the universe, which doesn't behave in the same way as the "inside", Which would contradict the claim you make above.

[danot]

If only there was a way to type questions like this into the internet.

 

Or a big building with lots of books in it which anyone could read.

 

It'll never happen.

Making the option of debating the issue redundant.

[HeadingNorth]

It could be argued though, that there isn't a problem- as the underlying multiverse is postulated as being uncaused and existing forever, the question of it's origin would not apply, as, by definition, it has no origin.

 

 

But if we're willing to accept that something can be uncaused, we don't need to postulate an underlying multiverse to begin with. The Universe, itself, may be uncaused.

[HeadingNorth]

By your own admission, that doesn't necessarily have to be true.

 

Anything which is self-contradictory cannot be true.

[danot]

Anything which is self-contradictory cannot be true.

But that particular contradiction is not confirmation that space cannot be contained. By your own admission, the rules that apply "inside" the universe(which scientists base all of their logical deductions on), may not apply to rules "outside" of our universe.

 

Can you not see the flaw in what you are saying?

[HeadingNorth]

But that particular contradiction is not confirmation that space cannot be contained.

 

 

But is is confirmation that the claim it must be contained, is false. It may not be. There's no way to tell.

 

Occam's Razor kicks in at that point, and says that if we are to choose between an unprovable claim that the Universe is not contained within something else, and an unprovable claim that the Universe is contained within something else, which in turn is not contained ... we choose the former because it is simpler.

[danot]

But is is confirmation that the claim it must be contained, is false. It may not be. There's no way to tell.

 

Occam's Razor kicks in at that point, and says that if we are to choose between an unprovable claim that the Universe is not contained within something else, and an unprovable claim that the Universe is contained within something else, which in turn is not contained ... we choose the former because it is simpler.

Yes!!!!, but it hasn't been proved to be true as it!?.. It's merely been accepted as being true, because we(humans)find it necessary to provide explanations to things we have no understanding of.

 

That's why I've been repeating, and repeating the plainly obvious fact!, that we(humans)cannot apply our logical reasoning(not with a straight face anyhow) to 'whether the universe in contained, or whether it isn't. Any logical deductions that claim to prove something to be true, can only apply to evaluations that were based on what we do know about the universe.. they cannot be applied to what we don't know, as that would make the findings inconclusive.

 

Having said that, science is a law unto itself isn't it.

[onewheeldave]

But if we're willing to accept that something can be uncaused, we don't need to postulate an underlying multiverse to begin with. The Universe, itself, may be uncaused.

 

But the univerese has the problem of the 'Big Bang', usually seen as an origin and for which there's obvious evidence.

 

The multiverse has no such observed big bang event and it can be postulated that it has simply existed forever (uncaused).

[HeadingNorth]

But the univerese has the problem of the 'Big Bang', usually seen as an origin and for which there's obvious evidence.

 

Why is that a problem? The Big Bang might well be the origin, but there is nothing to say that this origin must have had a cause; just as there is nothing to say that an infinite, eternal Multiverse must have had a cause.

[HeadingNorth]

That's why I've been repeating, and repeating the plainly obvious fact!, that we(humans)cannot apply our logical reasoning(not with a straight face anyhow) to 'whether the universe in contained, or whether it isn't.

 

 

 

It's a plainly obvious piece of idiocy, not a fact. We can apply logical reasoning to it, and have done so. I presented you with the summary on page one of this thread.