What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[HeadingNorth]

I thought there was no outside of the universe?.

 

 

So far as anyone will ever know, there isn't. Certainly it makes no sense to try to apply rules from inside the Universe, to try to understand what might be outside it.

[danot]

So far as anyone will ever know, there isn't. Certainly it makes no sense to try to apply rules from inside the Universe, to try to understand what might be outside it.

But we apply the rules of logic.. isn't that why the universe doesn't need a cause?

[plekhanov]

No one is an atheist,

That is a ludicrous statement, I for one am an atheist and I have every reason to believe many other people are as well.

 

as you get older the easier it is to believe in some kind of god.

Even if that was true so what? Whether or not something is easy to believe has no effect upon whether or not it is true.

[plekhanov]

That's why, in connection with a God with defining characteristics including being uncreated/always existed, I used terms like if and assume

 

Now, assuming that God is uncreated/always existed, then certain things follow (it's a logical argument).

And we should we assume anything of the sort why exactly? What evidence do you have that any such super being exists?

 

If you can assume such ludicrous things and then

 

You've twice tried to show that other things could 'create' such a God (ie definiton and your 'super-god').

 

Now you appear to be saying that you're not refering to that defintion of God?

 

Fair enough, but, then your arguments simply do not relate to anything I've said.

 

If you are refering to that defintion of God, then be aware of the that that nothing, can create a thing that already exists.

 

You can of course, argue that there isn't a God that matches that description (of being uncreated/always existed), in which case, go ahead.

What I am saying relates precisely to what you've said as I'm questioning the completely baseless premise that you've attempted to build your whole shoddy argument upon.

 

You are attempting to define your sky pixie into existence by arbitrarily selecting a few characteristics "always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence" arbitrarily declaring that these extraordinary characteristics apply to your sky pixie and that therefore he exists.

 

By invoking 'super-god' I am simply pointing out the absurdity of your attempting to base serious arguments off such a ludicrous and utterly unsubstantiated premise.

 

'Invoke' is another unfortunate choice of word to use in connection with a proposed being whose essence is to always exist

 

It's a long established argument in the philosophy of religion-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

Good job ignoring all the similarly long established criticisms on that page.

 

Plekhanov's super-god is far from valid, as one of it's characteristics is that it creates a God whose essence is to always exist and, therefore is logically impossible to create: Plekhanov's super-god therefore performs the logically impossible and thus cannot possibly exist.

But by definition my super-god (for whom there is just as much evidence as your god) created within your god the belief that it "wasn't created by super-god but is by nature and by definition, always-existing, uncreated and incapable of non-existence" as such the essense of your sky pixie isn't to always exist but simply to falsely think he always existed.

 

If you can simply declare, on the basis of no evidence, that your sky pixie by definition always existed then you have no grounds to question anyone else declaring by definition that 'super-god' or 'super-super-god' always existed.

[onewheeldave]

And we should we assume anything of the sort why exactly? What evidence do you have that any such super being exists?

 

 

....

By invoking 'super-god' I am simply pointing out the absurdity of your attempting to base serious arguments off such a ludicrous and utterly unsubstantiated premise.

 

 

....

If you can simply declare, on the basis of no evidence, that your sky pixie by definition always existed then you have no grounds to question anyone else declaring by definition that 'super-god' or 'super-super-god' always existed.

 

 

 

By 'assuming' that a God is 'always existing, can't not-exist etc' I'm using a standard technique of logical argument.

 

I'm not actually saying there is such a God- that would require evidence.

 

What I'm doing is running an argument that starts, assume God is... etc: consequences follow from that assumption, which are true if the assumption is.

 

The same process is used in mathematics, in, for example, the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational.

 

No doubt there could be a direct proof of this, but the most well known is a magnificently simple proof (fits on one page and only contains basic algebra) which starts by assuming that the square root of 2 is rational. (google is your friend if you want to know what rational and irrational numbers are).

 

From this assumption, it logically follows that the root of 2 is irrational- contradicting the original assumption, which is therefore shown to be false

 

if you want the actual details of the proof-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proof_by_infinite_descent

 

Thus the square root of 2 is proven to be irrational, by a proof which starts by assuming it is rational i.e. by assuming the opposite of what you eventually conclude is true.

 

Similarly, my assumption about God, is used in the same way, in this case to prove that your super-God cannot (logically cannot) create such a God.

 

Because, your argument, if it refers to the God I posited, is talking about a God who cannot not exist, and, therefore, cannot be created by your super-God.

 

If, in contrast, you're talking about a different God, then, to put it bluntly, you're in the wrong argument

 

Obviously, you don't have to accept that the assumption is true, but, I am perfectly within my rights to start my argument with that assumption, it's entirely valid.

 

If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with the whole fields of logic and mathematics and, therefore, with the whole of modern physics which rests upon those fields.

[plekhanov]

By 'assuming' that a God is 'always existing, can't not-exist etc' I'm using a standard technique of logical argument.

And by pointing out the absurdity of your starting premise I'm also using a standard technique of logical argument. One that someone who seems to be patronisingly attempting to set them self up as some kind of authority upon debating really should recognise.

 

I'm not actually saying there is such a God- that would require evidence.

 

What I'm doing is running an argument that starts, assume God is... etc: consequences follow from that assumption, which are true if the assumption is.

Yes and what I'm saying is; why should anyone accept such an assumption, especially as you are assuming a prime issue that's a stake in the debate.

 

Your zeal to get past the really rather fundamental issue of whether or not your sky pixie exists so you can wax lyrical about what "consequences follow from that", doesn't magically remove from you the responsibility to substantiate claims as wild as those you've been making, even if you'd like to just assume that those claims are valid.

 

The same process is used in mathematics, in, for example, the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational.

 

No doubt there could be a direct proof of this, but the most well known is a magnificently simple proof (fits on one page and only contains basic algebra) which starts by assuming that the square root of 2 is rational. (google is your friend if you want to know what rational and irrational numbers are).

 

From this assumption, it logically follows that the root of 2 is irrational- contradicting the original assumption, which is therefore shown to be false

 

if you want the actual details of the proof-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square_root_of_2#Proof_by_infinite_descent

 

Thus the square root of 2 is proven to be irrational, by a proof which starts by assuming it is rational i.e. by assuming the opposite of what you eventually conclude is true.

 

Similarly, my assumption about God, is used in the same way, in this case to prove that your super-God cannot (logically cannot) create such a God.

 

Because, your argument, if it refers to the God I posited, is talking about a God who cannot not exist, and, therefore, cannot be created by your super-God.

 

If, in contrast, you're talking about a different God, then, to put it bluntly, you're in the wrong argument

 

Obviously, you don't have to accept that the assumption is true, but, I am perfectly within my rights to start my argument with that assumption, it's entirely valid.

 

If you have an issue with that, then you have an issue with the whole fields of logic and mathematics and, therefore, with the whole of modern physics which rests upon those fields.

Your assumption is not valid when what you are assuming is what is up for debate. Question begging is a fallacy even if the question being begged is one concerning the existence of a sky pixie large numbers of people have a considerable emotional investment in.

 

I am clearly not arguing that super-god exists, I am simply using super-god to mock your attempt to without evidence define your sky pixie into being by pointing out that if reserve your right to do so you can have no objection to others defining all manner of other beings into existence, including beings that are mutually exclusive with your sky pixie.

 

As I have already pointed out and you have pointedly ignored super-god is defined in such a way as to avoid your objection. An objection which only stands if someone accepts your baseless assertions for the definition of your god over my baseless assertions for the definition of super-god (a definition which deliberately contradicts yours). My argument clearly isn't that anyone should accept my definition of super-god and proceed to build a theology upon the assumption that definition is valid. My argument is clearly that there is no reason why anyone should accept either definition as having any validity until such as point as someone provides evidence to support one of them.

[onewheeldave]

 

 

Yes and what I'm saying is; why should anyone accept such an assumption, especially as you are assuming a prime issue that's a stake in the debate.

 

Like I said before, in logic you can assume whatever you like, including things that are false. I gave you an example with the irrationality of the square root of 2. It's standard, accepted and common place in maths and logic. If you still insist on it being invalid, then take it up with mathematicians and logicians, there's no point me saying any more on it.

 

 

 

As I have already pointed out and you have pointedly ignored super-god is defined in such a way as to avoid your objection. An objection which only stands if someone accepts your baseless assertions for the definition of your god over my baseless assertions for the definition of super-god (a definition which deliberately contradicts yours). My argument clearly isn't that anyone should accept my definition of super-god and proceed to build a theology upon the assumption that definition is valid. My argument is clearly that there is no reason why anyone should accept either definition as having any validity until such as point as someone provides evidence to support one of them.

 

I explained as best I could in the earlier post- not much point me trying again.

 

 

 

 

Your zeal to get past the really rather fundamental issue of whether or not your sky pixie exists so you can wax lyrical about what "consequences follow from that", doesn't magically remove from you the responsibility to substantiate claims as wild as those you've been making, even if you'd like to just assume that those claims are valid.

 

 

 

I'm not actually, as you seem to be thinking, attempting to prove the existence of God- my last ten or so posts have been attempts to explain why your 'super-God' argument doesn't actually relate to anything I said concerning the ontological argument.

 

Clearly, that little sub-debate is not worth continuing, so i'd suggest we leave it at that.

[Digsy]

I'll give you my theory on what existed before the big bang.

I'll have to explain it on a 2 dimensional level, so it's easier to understand.

The ocean is built up of tiny particles that make one ocean kind of like infinity being full of strings.

Now before the big bang, or big splash as I like to call it, these strings didn't really do anything interesting just flowed around the infinite void.

Until eventually the momentum created an internal splash and these g-strings began to matter.

First thing to occupy the space previously occupied by g-strings were accountants, who died shortly after due to lack of oxygen.

Needing to meet new demands the universe had to manufacture the perfect conditions for the inevitable return of the age of the accountants.

[splodgeyAl]

Just read this:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727780.301-mtheory-doubts-linger-over-godless-multiverse.html

STEPHEN HAWKING'S new book The Grand Design sparked a furore over whether physics can be used to disprove the existence of God. But few have noted that the idea at the core of the book, M-theory, is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate – specifically over the very aspect of the theory that might scrap the need for a divine creator.

 

That the laws of nature in our universe are finely tuned for life seems miraculous, leading some to invoke divine involvement. But if there is a multiverse out there – a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics – then the conditions we observe may not be unique.

 

Hawking suggests that M-theory, the leading interpretation of string theory, calls for a multiverse. Others are divided over the strength of this link. "My own opinion is that we don't understand the theory well enough to be able to say whether there is one single universe or a multitude of universes," says M-theorist Michael Duff of Imperial College London.

 

"It's dangerous to pin your beliefs on any theory of physics," Duff adds, "because it might turn out to be wrong. But if Stephen wants to stick his neck out, I wish him good luck."

Food for thought

[Cyclone]

I really don't get why people think it's 'miraculous' that the laws of the universe appear to be finely tuned for life.

It's like a puddle thinking it's miraculous that the edges of the whole fit it's form so well.

 

Whatever laws existed, we'd have come into being within them, they'd always appear to be just the perfect fit for our life, when in fact we're just confusing the causality and it's our form of life that is a perfect fit for the laws that were already there.