God as the first cause.

[Schrödinger's hat]

To sum up - I think the question is completely unanswerable (ie the answer must be "we cannot and do not know") but it is not a false dichotomy - would appreciate corrections

 

There is also a presupposition that for every time '(some finite amount of time) before that time' is a coherent statement with an extant referent that is the same class if entity that we normally use when speaking of time.

Or at the very least, the concept of 'always' is somewhat ill defined.

 

This is yet another complicated and difficult question for which anyone who is not on the forefront of cosmology should answer "I don't know".

Edited April 2, 2012 by Schrödinger's hat

[doG]

How can atheists claim to know God does not exist when they don't read about Him

Read about it where?

[yrreg]

040312tue 0743h

 

[ Note to readers: I will now always prefix the date and time of every new message I write in my recurring session here in this forum, so that readers will know that there are several separate messages even though the system here puts them all together for having a close chronological link among themselves. ]

 

 

I have read the bible, more than once cover to cover and many times as little blurbs given to me by my pastor.

 

 

 

I get tired of telling Christians what their own holy book actually says, I think i am qualified to discuss this with you.

 

 

 

Again, you are assuming something about me that is only not true but it takes quite a bit of gall to assume such a thing on this forum.

 

 

 

I doubt that but I will still attempt to do so.

 

 

 

Of course not but you are dealing with an atheist who is quite familiar with the christian faith...

 

 

 

yada yada yada

 

 

 

I say yes, something has always existed...

 

 

 

Again, i have and i say yes something has always existed no matter how you define something and existence...

 

 

 

 

 

I am trying to do that but it would be easier to nail an eel to a tree.

 

 

Now, show me some evidence of the existence of not only a god but of your god.... and do not insult me by saying that i insist that god does not exist, i say i do not know if a god exists but I can say i see no positive evidence of a god christian or otherwise... You can trust that i will not ask you a stupid question designed to humiliate the concept of god, I take the concept very seriously, if there is a god i want to know about it and what it wants but it will have to do better than just have faith and believe....

 

If you insult me one more time you can best believe this conversation is over....

 

 

 

I will just ask you:

 

1. What is first line of Genesis?

 

2. What is first line of the Apostles' Creed?

 

 

Yrreg

[Moontanman]

040312tue 0743h

 

[ Note to readers: I will now always prefix the date and time of every new message I write in my recurring session here in this forum, so that readers will know that there are several separate messages even though the system here puts them all together for having a close chronological link among themselves. ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will just ask you:

 

1. What is first line of Genesis?

 

2. What is first line of the Apostles' Creed?

 

 

Yrreg

 

 

This conversation is over...

[yrreg]

040312tue 0810h

 

Very few actually do. The vast majority simply say, "There's no good or compelling reason to assume one does. I remain open to evidence, but until you have something that would appeal to a rational and reasonable human being, I'm not inclined to accept the claim that one exists... Let alone the Christian one... as valid."

 

 

 

I am sorry that you don't understand my challenge to your position, but that problem resides with you, not me. Try googling "false dichotomy" or "false choice" if you need to.

 

 

 

There's no need for this kind of invective, vitriol, and personal attack. I would like to ask you, however, why sharing the only accurate answer to this question is being dismissed as a "cop-out," and why sharing the only accurate answer indicates "sparse and poor knowledge." That seems silly, but I welcome your (sure to be forthcoming) clarification.

 

 

 

That is the perennial trouble with atheists, they don't know about first things first, like if they were to travel they don't ask first how much money they have.

 

 

Okay, let me see if you are capable of occupying your mind on the matter of God's existence or non-existence, on first things first.

 

Tell me has there always been something existing?

 

 

There are smart but in effect insane atheists who go straight to the first question of existence yes or no, by working on concepts and words and pseudo math to establish that the universe of existence came forth from nothing.

 

Unless they are acting as comedians plus magicians, they must be insane.

 

 

First, work on that question, "Has there always been something existing."

 

Then we can proceed to put up and you put me down on the thesis that God is the first cause of all existence in the universe that is not God Himself or everything in the universe that has a beginning.

 

 

Stop beating about the bush, go to first things first, answer the question and yes explain your answer, "Has there always been something existing?"

 

 

 

 

Yrreg

[iNow]

Have you been diagnosed with a mental handicap, maybe? Surely, your reading comprehension cannot be that miserable...

[yrreg]

040312tue 0825h

 

I think I read now that someone or some folks here want to talk about evidence.

 

Didn't I ask you guys who are atheists to produce your concept of evidence as from your own stock knowledge, and then to give two examples, and also most importantly to explain how evidence works to ascertain the existence of something in the actual objective reality of existing things?

 

 

But now I have realized that first things first: "Has there always been something existing?"

 

Let us all work first on that question.

 

 

 

Yrreg

[iNow]

The correct answer is maybe. What is your next question, Regis?

[Moontanman]

Stop beating about the bush, go to first things first, answer the question and yes explain your answer, "Has there always been something existing?"

Yrreg

 

 

I am going to go back on what I said but only to point out I answered your question and said why I answered it the way I did, btw, most everyone doesn't agree with me on this idea that nothing cannot exist. I stuck my neck out to answer you as truthfully as I could and you insulted me by trying to give me bible lessons. your argument is nothing but dishonesty, and in the dictionary I am quite sure troll is beside your name. either give us some evidence, for the definition of evidence please see the video below....

 

 

Or admit you have no evidence and withdraw your assertions...

[mooeypoo]

I will just ask you:

 

1. What is first line of Genesis?

בְּרֵאשִׁית, בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ.

 

Surely, you mean the first *published* line of Genesis. You know, the one the Council of Jamnia essentially created by deciding which scrolls to bind into the "Tanach" and which not to. If that's what you mean, then the above is the first line of said edited publication.

 

But now I have realized that first things first: "Has there always been something existing?"

Let us all work first on that question.

Yes, let's.

 

 

According to religion, the answer is a very comfortable "YES!" about God, which is funny because when scientists suggest anything else, religious folk jump to ask "BUT WHAT WAS BEFORE!".

 

So... what was before God? If the question "what was before the big bang" is relevant, so is "what was before god" and if the answer to the latter is "nothing, it always existed", then it cannot be claimed it's a bad answer for the former as well.

 

Consistency is a magical thing.

 

~mooey

 

040312tue 0810h

 

That is the perennial trouble with atheists, they don't know about first things first, like if they were to travel they don't ask first how much money they have.

 

I would suggest that you stop preaching and get off your high horse. You are the one who came to this forum, this scienceforum, trying to convince us. We're participating in the discussion, and being condescending won't benefit to your cause or our niceynicey feeling.

 

If you're here to ridicule us, I suggest you save yourself the trouble. If you're here to debate, then get off the attitude.

 

Whatever happened to treating your neighbors the way you want to be treated, eh? Apparently that only counts for neighbors you agree with.

 

~mooey

[doG]

Read about it where?

Still waiting........

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

I would suggest that you stop preaching and get off your high horse. You are the one who came to this forum, this scienceforum, trying to convince us. We're participating in the discussion, and being condescending won't benefit to your cause or our niceynicey feeling.

 

If you're here to ridicule us, I suggest you save yourself the trouble. If you're here to debate, then get off the attitude.

 

Whatever happened to treating your neighbors the way you want to be treated, eh? Apparently that only counts for neighbors you agree with.

 

~mooey

 

!

Moderator Note

I'm going to reiterate this as an official mod note. yrreg, you are to stop preaching, stop evading questions and stop being condescending. Try properly answering some questions for once or your banning prediction may very well be fulfilled.

[Arete]

But now I have realized that first things first: "Has there always been something existing?"

 

Let us all work first on that question.

 

We all did - and found it to be based around a logical fallacy by which the demanded answer was both unequivocally speculative (i.e. not based on any form of verifiable, independent, observable evidence - see Moontanman's video) and restricted to a false set of answers which exclude plausible and unconsidered a priori alternatives.

 

If the basis of your argument is fallacious, it's hard to accept any of the proceedings thereafter. The house is built on sand, to appropriate a biblical analogy.

[imatfaal]

I guess false dichotomy doesn't perfectly encapsulate the type of fallacy at hand, but it does describe the exclusion of answers in a fashion.

 

For e.g: In the couch example I could have no couch, a couch of a color other than red or blue, or my couch could be red and blue, etc.

 

In the initial proposition, matter could have existed in a fashion not currently understood, as to not fall under our formal definition of "existing", or any other number of intermediates or alternative conditions which are not and unable to be considered in the initial premise. The presented conditions both enforce an answer to an unknowable question and excludes possibilities outside of the a priori set of hypotheses.

 

Great answer - thanks.

 

I loathe the specious arguments put forward by rank apologists - but I feel duty bound to answer them without recourse to the same abuse of logic and reason that they employ. The initial question was a classic attempt at a "morton's fork" dichotomy which (even if perfectly constructed) would always fail when used against scientists/rationalists because of their love of saying "we just don't know". The profession of ignorance is the unbeliever's greatest weapon - "we don't know and we are waiting for evidence" - this pretty much stymies the majority of questions asked of the committed rationalist.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

And to add to my previous note something that I missed before - the rules on civility and personal attacks go both ways. If a person holding some religious belief is not permitted to attack those who do not share that belief, then a person who does not hold a belief in some deity is not allowed attack someone who does.

iNow, you should be very well aware of our stance on personal attacks by now. As staff, our jobs are made much easier when we don't have to also deal with infractions by long time, well-established and (usually) productive members.

[iNow]

It wasn't a personal attack. It was a sincere question, but whatevs...

[Arete]

The profession of ignorance is the unbeliever's greatest weapon - "we don't know and we are waiting for evidence" - this pretty much stymies the majority of questions asked of the committed rationalist.

 

Given the number of times my data supports neither the test hypothesis or the null hypothesis, but yields a third result outside of the possibilities considered a priori I always find it difficult to accept dichotomous a priori positions. Besides, it's always humbling/exciting when the data comes along and proves that all opposing parties were wrong and the answer is one no one actually considered.

 

e.g. Hypothesis A: "We will find genetic structure concordant with rivers acting as barriers"

Hypothesis B: "We will find genetic structure associated with Pleistocene refugia"

Null Hypothesis: "The population is panmictic"

 

Actual result: "Genetic structure is completely discordant with current geography and what you thought was one species is actually eight. Sucker."

 

Sometimes I feel like the divide between scientific thinking and theological/metaphysical thinking is that when you actually have/will get real data, you need to accept the very real possibility that all your preconceptions will be totally wrong. There's nothing wrong with it and more often than not it's far more exciting (if considerably more humbling) than simply having your preconceptions supported.

 

As such, having a statement such as "Matter either always existed or it did not. Pick an option." foisted like an ultimatum is very disconnected from my experience in actually making hypotheses and then collecting observations to verify them and it's difficult to reconcile with a premise where an un-thought of alternative isn't accepted as a very real possibility.

[imatfaal]

Actual result: "Genetic structure is completely discordant with current geography and what you thought was one species is actually eight. Sucker."

 

I was struggling to follow your example till I came to word Sucker and suddenly all became clear

 

I moved away from science many years ago, but the way you have phrased that reminds me of my very first boss who said something on very similar lines "If a broker offers you A or B, don't ask yourself which is better: ask yourself why is it benefiting him to limit you to those two options"

 

As such, having a statement such as "Matter either always existed or it did not. Pick an option." foisted like an ultimatum is very disconnected from my experience in actually making hypotheses and then collecting observations to verify them and it's difficult to reconcile with a premise where an un-thought of alternative isn't accepted as a very real possibility.

Completely agree that this is more an ultimatum than a serious question; however, I think it serves rationalism better to say that scientifically the question is so structured as to be unanswerable, rather than to step into the philosophical/logical arena and say the question is not validly formulated and is thus void of meaning. Edited April 3, 2012 by imatfaal

[Moontanman]

What bothers me most about the creationist type theist or those who seem to think their holy book, what ever it is, has to be absolutely true or there is no god and that if you don't believe it to be true then you have to be an atheist. While I am an atheist it is not because I hate god or that i want to feel good about rape and pillaging the next village for what ever it really bothers me that there are a considerable number of people who feel like that god is the only thing that keeps them from immoral behavior.

 

In this particular case I went out on a limb and answered his really unfair question but he still refuses to give any positive evidence for god. Some how he expects me to give him two examples of evidence to why there cannot be a god when he is the the one making a positive assertion. I do not say there cannot be a god, I just say I know of no positive evidence that there is a god. Just because there is at this time no evidence of where the universe came from it must be god. this is not only not true it has been shown not to be true over and over through out human history. At one time lightning was thought to be proof of god, no one could explain where those bolts of destruction came from so it had to be god... no one could explain where volcanoes came from so it had to be god, no one could explain where earth quakes came from so it had to be god.

 

HORSE FEATHERS!

 

At one time mushroom fairy rings had to be supernatural but they weren't, the tides had to caused by a god but they weren't.

 

So it must follow that since we don't know anything about where the universe came from it must be god... Really?

 

There is the smug attitude of i know something you don't and I am going to rub your nose in it as long as i can because you don't know and i do....

 

yrreg either show some sort of actual evidence for the existence of a god or as you are saying the christian god or simply admit all you have is your need to believe and faith you are right and go on, I'll give you respect for just admitting it's just what you believe, i don't want to convince you god is not real but I do what to see the so called evidence.

 

Show me why there is a god, then show me why it's your god or admit you don't know like an honest person should, isn't lying a sin btw?

[questionposter]

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about,

There actually didn't necessarily have to be something before space came about, because if space formed only at the creation of the universe, and the universe contains EVERYTHING, and that event happened a specific amount of time ago, then there couldn't have been anything before that time by the definition of the "universe". This would include God if God exists in any physical way, because in order to physically exist, it must be a part of the universe, which would have to follow that creation logic.

Edited April 4, 2012 by questionposter

[Ophiolite]

As there is always something existing in the universe even before time and space came about

Always implies time. If there might be dimensions other than time and space - for which I concede no evidence exists, but run with me - and if these dimensions be capable of 'restructuring', by chance or causation, then there need not always have been something since time might not always have bben extant and therefore the operning question is absolutely a false dichotomy.

[imatfaal]

Always implies time. If there might be dimensions other than time and space - for which I concede no evidence exists, but run with me - and if these dimensions be capable of 'restructuring', by chance or causation, then there need not always have been something since time might not always have bben extant and therefore the operning question is absolutely a false dichotomy.

 

If you need to posit completely new and unfounded dimensions to give credence to the argument that the question is a false dichotomy then I think it is a false appellation. A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy because it purports to divide the reality in question into two exhaustive portions where in fact a third (or fourth etc) portion exists - a lack of precision in terms does not make it fallacious, just poorly worded

[Moontanman]

I look at it this way, if our universe is all of existence then something has always existed. To suggest nothing exists is no better than suggesting something before existence. There are hypothesis that suggest what we call space time is just part of a bulk dimensional space but again you run into the same oxymoron if you suggest something existing before anything exists. Anyway you look at it something has to exist for there to be existence. How do you define something before existence? That is why i say something has always existed and nothing can not exist....

[mooeypoo]

Always implies time. If there might be dimensions other than time and space - for which I concede no evidence exists, but run with me - and if these dimensions be capable of 'restructuring', by chance or causation, then there need not always have been something since time might not always have bben extant and therefore the operning question is absolutely a false dichotomy.

 

I'm not sure about that. Wouldn't that be the same as saying that "Infinite" implies length? But it's a concept more than an actual length, so it doesn't "require" actual length. Same goes to "Always", no?

[Ophiolite]

I look at it this way, if our universe is all of existence then something has always existed. To suggest nothing exists is no better than suggesting something before existence. There are hypothesis that suggest what we call space time is just part of a bulk dimensional space but again you run into the same oxymoron if you suggest something existing before anything exists. Anyway you look at it something has to exist for there to be existence. How do you define something before existence? That is why i say something has always existed and nothing can not exist....

But I think this statement is more a reflection of our inability to truly conceive of the meaning of such terms as infinity, eternity and nothing. I don't see it as constituing a strong argument.