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.

[achilles12604]

Of course not. Hence something outside of the universe MUST NOT be subject to the same laws as everything inside, and hence, special pleading does not apply.

I know what you're saying... my problem is that you're trying to apply human logic to a situation that apparently transcends it. I don't care what universe one lives in... that doesn't make sense!!!

Well given the tools at my disposal it is the best I can do and frankly, the only way around it that I am aware of is to demand I claim ignorance on the subject rather than present hypothesis, and go away.

How about this . . . . Given the bounds of human logic, is my hypothesis logical?

Why? Why not?

And saying it isn't logical simply because it goes beyond the bounds of current knowledge is in itself a false statement. After all isn't that what science is all about? Putting forth radical hypothesis and then testing them? Was the theory of relativity accepted as logical and sound given what science knew at the time?

No. He Einstein was not accepted by many of his peers. But further scientific advances proved him correct.

So in this light, I ask again is my hypothesis at least plausible? If not, why?

[Beto]

How about this . . . . Given the bounds of human logic, is my hypothesis logical?

Why? Why not?

Here's why I can't wrap my head around that... if we make a statement like "human logic does not apply outside the human universe, so the application of logic on matters "extra-universal" can be logically valid" is STILL an application of human logic, so this makes "extra-human-logic", if you will, paradoxical, hence not valid.

[achilles12604]

How about this . . . . Given the bounds of human logic, is my hypothesis logical?

Why? Why not?

Here's why I can't wrap my head around that... if we make a statement like "human logic does not apply outside the human universe, so the application of logic on matters "extra-universal" can be logically valid" is STILL an application of human logic, so this makes "extra-human-logic", if you will, paradoxical, hence not valid.

I am not sure I ever said human LOGIC does not apply. I said physical laws specifically the laws of cause and effect may not apply. Or they may, really it makes little difference concerning the causation of THIS universe.

You brought up logic, not me.

[Beto]

You brought up logic, not me.

You bring up "first cause", and how it's not special pleading, you bring up logic.

[achilles12604]

You brought up logic, not me.

You bring up "first cause", and how it's not special pleading, you bring up logic.

Ah ok I see the disconnect.


The logic remains entirely within this universe. The science expands beyond the universe.



Let us start over.


I say that first cause is an arguement that shows the likelyhood of something external to the universe setting the universe in motion.

What do you say and why?

[Sjoerd]

Beto and Achilles, I really like your discussion and your arguments. As soon as I have found out which of you (if any) has a different position than myself, I will donate some tokens.

[Beto]

Beto and Achilles, I really like your discussion and your arguments. As soon as I have found out which of you (if any) has a different position than myself, I will donate some tokens.

Way to put the pressure on... I'll have to think about that last question for a while.

[achilles12604]

Beto and Achilles, I really like your discussion and your arguments. As soon as I have found out which of you (if any) has a different position than myself, I will donate some tokens.

Way to put the pressure on... I'll have to think about that last question for a while.

I'm not going anywhere.

[Beto]

I say that first cause is an arguement that shows the likelyhood of something external to the universe setting the universe in motion.

What do you say and why?

Under human logic, inexorably bound to the physical laws of the universe we inhabit, any effect is caused by elemental forces. The problem, I guess, is trying to determine what caused the elemental forces to be. So I envision three "options" of which only one is logically valid within this universe. Either the elemental forces caused themselves to be (definitely not logical), something outside the universe created them (something that apparently doesn't need elemental forces to "exist" and contradicts the logic of this universe), or the elemental forces have always been, and were never actually "caused" in the first place. To me, only this last one seems to make any measure of sense, despite its counter-intuitiveness which, mind you, doesn't translate to logical invalidity. Unless you can disconnect "likely" from "logical", I don't see how your argument can be either.

[achilles12604]

I say that first cause is an arguement that shows the likelyhood of something external to the universe setting the universe in motion.

What do you say and why?

Under human logic, inexorably bound to the physical laws of the universe we inhabit, any effect is caused by elemental forces. The problem, I guess, is trying to determine what caused the elemental forces to be. So I envision three "options" of which only one is logically valid within this universe. Either the elemental forces caused themselves to be (definitely not logical), something outside the universe created them (something that apparently doesn't need elemental forces to "exist" and contradicts the logic of this universe), or the elemental forces have always been, and were never actually "caused" in the first place. To me, only this last one seems to make any measure of sense, despite its counter-intuitiveness which, mind you, doesn't translate to logical invalidity. Unless you can disconnect "likely" from "logical", I don't see how your argument can be either.

I agree with you on option one.

Option two - something outside the universe created them (something that apparently doesn't need elemental forces to "exist" and contradicts the logic of this universe)

You have attached characteristics which I do not think are necessary.

1) You are assuming that the laws (or logic as you keep putting it) of this universe should apply outside of it. I suggest that outside of this universe could be dimentions in which our physical laws and requirements do not apply. 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.

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.




Option 3 - or the elemental forces have always been, and were never actually "caused" in the first place.

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