A Question for Religious People

[C-Nub]

I got this from a book.

Oh, and for the atheists out there, I'm one of you, don't post that there is no God. Just sit on your hands and be good for a while.

Please?

Anyways, here's the question. It might be better suited for the philosophy area, but once again, I'm an internet Jedi, and moderators will leave this thread alone.

Would you rather continue more or less as you are, believing in God and telling people that you know he exists and loves you, or would you rather know for a fact that there's a god, that mankind has been in actual, factual contact with him, but he's a giant worm that lives on mars?

Odd question, I know, but I'm curious. Options again are

A) I believe in God, but I'm kind of not sure even though I sometimes pretend I am.

B) I've seen pictures of God! He's a giant Martian Worm that loves me!



Personally, I have to default to B. I don't believe in God, so if I were to be faced with the choice between having faith and having proof, I opt for the proof. Worms never bothered me though.

[Beto]

1) You are assuming that the laws (or logic as you keep putting it) of this universe should apply outside of it.

Nope, I'm saying logic cannot be used to determine the likelihood of something extra-universal.

I suggest that outside of this universe could be dimentions in which our physical laws and requirements do not apply.

But you cannot logically argue for the "existence" of anything outside this universe, since "existence" is defined within the confines of this universe's laws and logic.

Remember the bucket of water. A fish would die if removed, but we do not. In the same way the first cause may not need our laws to exist.

This is as false as an analogy can get, because the logic validity of logic itself is put into question when discussing something "extra-universal", which assumes something can "exist" outside the universe, which is paradoxical.

2) The FC COULD need the exact same elements to exist, and perhaps had them in whatever universe they inhabited. Recently humans started the huge proton collider to study the interactions of elements nano-seconds after the big bang. What if the FC in another universe did the same thing and accidentally created another big bang which absorbed all surrounding matter and re-exploded it into our universe?

The FC may have had access and been limited by the EXACT same laws and logic we are. But as it would have been part of a different "system" (our universe being one independent system and their a second), our physical and elemental requirements would have had no impact or berring on the FC.

Same problem. Where did the first universe, or first conditions, come from? You'll always end up with special pleading.

Option 3(...)I can also buy this but it does not answer the cause and effect of the beginning of the universe.

No, because it assumes there wasn't one.

I can accept that elements and our physical laws were always in effect but if this is the case, then given those same laws SOMETHING must have happened to trigger the event we label the big bang.

Now if you argue that the universe in it's current form always existed, then you must address the mountain of evidence which suggests that the big bang occurred and formed this universe.

Hence the counter-intuitiveness of the only option I think is logically valid. I can't really wrap my head around it either.

[achilles12604]

1) You are assuming that the laws (or logic as you keep putting it) of this universe should apply outside of it.

Nope, I'm saying logic cannot be used to determine the likelihood of something extra-universal.

I suggest that outside of this universe could be dimentions in which our physical laws and requirements do not apply.

But you cannot logically argue for the "existence" of anything outside this universe, since "existence" is defined within the confines of this universe's laws and logic.

Science would disagree. Multiple Dimensions is an accepted theory. A Multi-verse is an excepted theory. Black holes and their opposing white holes is an almost proven theory. All of these depend upon existence of more than the bounds of our universe.

Besides, all I need is the possibility of something outside the universe. For you to be correct you need there to be ZERO possibility of something outside this universe.

Your entire argument rests upon the universe being EVERYTHING and nothing existing outside of it.

Another problem is that if there is indeed nothing outside of our universe, then what existed before our universe? If the answer is nothing than your position becomes impossible because nothing can not become something.

On the other hand if you revert back to matter and laws existed before this universe, then they would still exist outside of the universe's bounds.

2) The FC COULD need the exact same elements to exist, and perhaps had them in whatever universe they inhabited. Recently humans started the huge proton collider to study the interactions of elements nano-seconds after the big bang. What if the FC in another universe did the same thing and accidentally created another big bang which absorbed all surrounding matter and re-exploded it into our universe?

The FC may have had access and been limited by the EXACT same laws and logic we are. But as it would have been part of a different "system" (our universe being one independent system and their a second), our physical and elemental requirements would have had no impact or berring on the FC.

Same problem. Where did the first universe, or first conditions, come from? You'll always end up with special pleading.

Not at all. This would only be a problem IF the laws were exactly the same for EVERY FC in the chain. We only need a single dimention with different physical laws and the chain is broken.

Option 3(...)I can also buy this but it does not answer the cause and effect of the beginning of the universe.

No, because it assumes there wasn't one.

I can accept that elements and our physical laws were always in effect but if this is the case, then given those same laws SOMETHING must have happened to trigger the event we label the big bang.

Now if you argue that the universe in it's current form always existed, then you must address the mountain of evidence which suggests that the big bang occurred and formed this universe.

Hence the counter-intuitiveness of the only option I think is logically valid. I can't really wrap my head around it either.

So are you defaulting to the position that the universe as we know it has always existed? It seems to be your only option in which case you have a lot of science to explain away. My position accounts for all the science we know and suggests a hypothesis to explain the question of causation.

PS- Why do you find it illogical to believe that something can exist outside of the known universe? Because of a poorly worded definition? Theoretical physicists are constantly testing these unknowns. Have you so little faith in science that you feel it will never be discovered?

[Sjoerd]

1) You are assuming that the laws (or logic as you keep putting it) of this universe should apply outside of it.

Nope, I'm saying logic cannot be used to determine the likelihood of something extra-universal.

I suggest that outside of this universe could be dimentions in which our physical laws and requirements do not apply.

But you cannot logically argue for the "existence" of anything outside this universe, since "existence" is defined within the confines of this universe's laws and logic.

Remember the bucket of water. A fish would die if removed, but we do not. In the same way the first cause may not need our laws to exist.

This is as false as an analogy can get, because the logic validity of logic itself is put into question when discussing something "extra-universal", which assumes something can "exist" outside the universe, which is paradoxical.

2) The FC COULD need the exact same elements to exist, and perhaps had them in whatever universe they inhabited. Recently humans started the huge proton collider to study the interactions of elements nano-seconds after the big bang. What if the FC in another universe did the same thing and accidentally created another big bang which absorbed all surrounding matter and re-exploded it into our universe?

The FC may have had access and been limited by the EXACT same laws and logic we are. But as it would have been part of a different "system" (our universe being one independent system and their a second), our physical and elemental requirements would have had no impact or berring on the FC.

Same problem. Where did the first universe, or first conditions, come from? You'll always end up with special pleading.

Option 3(...)I can also buy this but it does not answer the cause and effect of the beginning of the universe.

No, because it assumes there wasn't one.

I can accept that elements and our physical laws were always in effect but if this is the case, then given those same laws SOMETHING must have happened to trigger the event we label the big bang.

Now if you argue that the universe in it's current form always existed, then you must address the mountain of evidence which suggests that the big bang occurred and formed this universe.

Hence the counter-intuitiveness of the only option I think is logically valid. I can't really wrap my head around it either.

What if the universe is circular, would that solve the problem? Would it need to be cyclic, as a wave of big bangs and big crunches, or would it be required that time itself would also be reset?

[achilles12604]

1) You are assuming that the laws (or logic as you keep putting it) of this universe should apply outside of it.

Nope, I'm saying logic cannot be used to determine the likelihood of something extra-universal.

I suggest that outside of this universe could be dimentions in which our physical laws and requirements do not apply.

But you cannot logically argue for the "existence" of anything outside this universe, since "existence" is defined within the confines of this universe's laws and logic.

Remember the bucket of water. A fish would die if removed, but we do not. In the same way the first cause may not need our laws to exist.

This is as false as an analogy can get, because the logic validity of logic itself is put into question when discussing something "extra-universal", which assumes something can "exist" outside the universe, which is paradoxical.

2) The FC COULD need the exact same elements to exist, and perhaps had them in whatever universe they inhabited. Recently humans started the huge proton collider to study the interactions of elements nano-seconds after the big bang. What if the FC in another universe did the same thing and accidentally created another big bang which absorbed all surrounding matter and re-exploded it into our universe?

The FC may have had access and been limited by the EXACT same laws and logic we are. But as it would have been part of a different "system" (our universe being one independent system and their a second), our physical and elemental requirements would have had no impact or berring on the FC.

Same problem. Where did the first universe, or first conditions, come from? You'll always end up with special pleading.

Option 3(...)I can also buy this but it does not answer the cause and effect of the beginning of the universe.

No, because it assumes there wasn't one.

I can accept that elements and our physical laws were always in effect but if this is the case, then given those same laws SOMETHING must have happened to trigger the event we label the big bang.

Now if you argue that the universe in it's current form always existed, then you must address the mountain of evidence which suggests that the big bang occurred and formed this universe.

Hence the counter-intuitiveness of the only option I think is logically valid. I can't really wrap my head around it either.

What if the universe is circular, would that solve the problem? Would it need to be cyclic, as a wave of big bangs and big crunches, or would it be required that time itself would also be reset?

Cyclical universes are possible. But then you have the problem of what a) Caused the universe in the first place and b )What caused and continues to cause it to expand perfectly each time.

[Beto]

Science would disagree. Multiple Dimensions is an accepted theory. A Multi-verse is an excepted theory. Black holes and their opposing white holes is an almost proven theory. All of these depend upon existence of more than the bounds of our universe.

Consider how it has been experimentally verified that the same particle can "exist" in two places at the same time, before emerging in the classical universe. Does the quantum universe "exist" in the classical universe, or vice-versa? If we start arguing about multiple universes, logically we have to acknowledge a "frame", or "platform", or "matrix", or whatever, in which the multiple universes "exist", and which cannot be explained by any theory applied to each of them. Again, there would be special pleading to account for its cause or creation.

Besides, all I need is the possibility of something outside the universe. For you to be correct you need there to be ZERO possibility of something outside this universe.

There is no question of "possibility" for something logically impossible.

Your entire argument rests upon the universe being EVERYTHING and nothing existing outside of it.

I'm just saying you cannot argue for "existence" outside the universe within the human logic paradigm.

Another problem is that if there is indeed nothing outside of our universe, then what existed before our universe? If the answer is nothing than your position becomes impossible because nothing can not become something.

Correct, under valid logic. Thus the first cause is a paradox and logically invalid.

On the other hand if you revert back to matter and laws existed before this universe, then they would still exist outside of the universe's bounds.

Again, "existence" outside the universe is a paradox, and even if you expand the universe as a multi-verse, the fundamental problem remains.

Not at all. This would only be a problem IF the laws were exactly the same for EVERY FC in the chain. We only need a single dimention with different physical laws and the chain is broken.

Why is a single dimension exempt from the issue of its origin?

So are you defaulting to the position that the universe as we know it has always existed? It seems to be your only option in which case you have a lot of science to explain away. My position accounts for all the science we know and suggests a hypothesis to explain the question of causation.

Honestly, I'm not saying the logically valid option, as I see it, is compatible with current science. I'm basically arguing for my sense of logic, not how it measures up against science.

[achilles12604]

So are you defaulting to the position that the universe as we know it has always existed? It seems to be your only option in which case you have a lot of science to explain away. My position accounts for all the science we know and suggests a hypothesis to explain the question of causation.

Honestly, I'm not saying the logically valid option, as I see it, is compatible with current science. I'm basically arguing for my sense of logic, not how it measures up against science.

I appreciate honesty.

We may be forced to agree to disagree as my primary guide in this world, both regarding daily life and God, is science. In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

[Beto]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

[achilles12604]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

I do not remove them. But I trust what science tells me first, and then use logic to determine its meaning. Hence logic bows to science.

[Beto]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

I do not remove them. But I trust what science tells me first, and then use logic to determine its meaning. Hence logic bows to science.

You can't trust what science tells you first, because during scientific predictions you apply logical deduction. This is a no-brainer. Saying you trust one first necessarily disconnects the two, and implies logic isn't inherently part of science.

[achilles12604]

As science has stated that the universe began, this is the point from which my logic must begin.

Science can state "time began with the Big Bang" all it wants, but I don't think logic will ever allow for "time" to "begin". Things "begin" and "end" within the framework of "time", so the paradox, to me at least, is quite apparent.

EDIT:

In my opinion logic must bow to science, not the other way around.

You cannot remove logic from the scientific method. It's inherent to its application.

I do not remove them. But I trust what science tells me first, and then use logic to determine its meaning. Hence logic bows to science.

You can't trust what science tells you first, because during scientific predictions you apply logical deduction. This is a no-brainer. Saying you trust one first necessarily disconnects the two, and implies logic isn't inherently part of science.

Are you sugggesting that they are one in the same?