Believe in magic or a flawed logic?

[The Believer]

There was never a time in the past that it didn't exist.

Well it is the same thing as saying "it always existed" which ultimately means it had no beginning. So according to your definition, no matter how far we go back in the past we can always find "it" existing but we can never find it being created which clearly implies that it had no beginning. So keeping your given definition by your side, you can agree with only one of the two possibilities. Either you agree that it had a beginning or you agree that it had no beginning. If you agree that it had a beginning then you are contradicting your own definition, because if it had a beginning then definitely there was a time in the past that didn't exist. And if you agree that it had no beginning then you are basically agreeing with me on my earlier comment where I said the logic of "it always existed" is flawed.

You ask what someone means. You ask them to tell you what someone else means even though you have stated explicitly what they probably mean. Then you refute the probable meaning that you yourself have given.

 

When I ask someone else what they mean, I don't actually refute the probable meaning that i have myself given. I just keep that meaning open to be criticised or rejected by others as well as myself if someone finds a fault in my given meaning. And that is the reason why I used the adjective "probably" so that it can be clear to others that I am willing to accept any other better meaning than the one given my me. And of course that meaning has to be logical and reasonable.

I am curious. What is your motivation?

 

 

well, good point. My motivation is very simple. My motivation can be compared to that of a hungry man who desires to eat food. He goes searching for the food in his kitchen.He finds a small piece of bread but he doesn't eat it yet because he wants something bigger.So he continues his search for a bigger food but also at the same time he keeps that small piece of bread with him. Because he knows, in case he fails to find any other food, that bread can save his life.

What do you believe?

 

 

To be honest, at this point of time, I fail to believe in anything. I am trying my best to believe in at least something. But when I try to believe using logic

or reasoning, everything seems to be falling apart and making no sense.

[StringJunky]

 

Well it is the same thing as saying "it always existed" which ultimately means it had no beginning. So according to your definition, no matter how far we go back in the past we can always find "it" existing but we can never find it being created which clearly implies that it had no beginning. So keeping your given definition by your side, you can agree with only one of the two possibilities. Either you agree that it had a beginning or you agree that it had no beginning. If you agree that it had a beginning then you are contradicting your own definition, because if it had a beginning then definitely there was a time in the past that didn't exist. And if you agree that it had no beginning then you are basically agreeing with me on my earlier comment where I said the logic of "it always existed" is flawed.

I'm saying, based on conservation of energy, it had no beginning/it always existed ...in this context they are synonymous. Where is it flawed?

Edited October 25, 2013 by StringJunky

[The Believer]

I'm saying, based on conservation of energy, it had no beginning/it always existed ...in this context they are synonymous. Where is it flawed?

I just want to ask you a very simple question here. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him? I believe your answer will be a "NO". My point is how can something which had no beginning or was un created, unstarted or unborn can exist? This goes against logic.

[pears]

My point is how can something which had no beginning or was un created, unstarted or unborn can exist? This goes against logic.

 

Does it go against logic? Or does it go against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept?

[The Believer]

 

Does it go against logic? Or does it go against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept?

Well, it goes against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept because it goes against logic.

[pears]

Well, it goes against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept because it goes against logic.

 

And can you prove that claim using rigorous logic? Or is it just a hunch?

[The Believer]

 

And can you prove that claim using rigorous logic? Or is it just a hunch?

I have already made it clear in my earlier arguments with stringJunky why the logic of "some existing without a beginning" is flawed. The logic is very simple. If something is not created, not started or has not began then it can not or should not exist. The question or probability of its existence does not arise at all if it has not been started or created in the first place.

 

I want to ask the same question to you that I had asked stringJunky. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created or unconstructed, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him?

Edited October 25, 2013 by The Believer

[StringJunky]

I just want to ask you a very simple question here. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him? I believe your answer will be a "NO". My point is how can something which had no beginning or was un created, unstarted or unborn can exist? This goes against logic.

 

Well, it goes against the ability of a human mind to comprehend such a concept because it goes against logic.

Yes I know it's a tough one when you think from our classical perspective that we know but the Universe is here now and we are in its timeline with no view of its past beyond a certain point. The problem is you are thinking in a nice straight linear fashion with a beginning, middle and end in this scenario but it just won't comply with the established parts of physics that we know, like conservation that I keep mentioning, to have a sudden start. When you construct hypotheses you must work from sound principles, and the laws of thermodynamics are such. to build bridges into that we don't know yet ... "If I have seen further it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" - Newton.

Edited October 25, 2013 by StringJunky

[pears]

I have already made it clear in my earlier arguments with stringJunky why the logic of "some existing without a beginning" is flawed. The logic is very simple. If something is not created, not started or has not began then it can not or should not exist. The question or probability of its existence does not arise at all if it has not been started or created in the first place.

 

I want to ask the same question to you that I had asked stringJunky. Suppose if a engineer do not begin or start the construction of a building then will you expect it to be existing? Or what if the same engineer claims that this building had no beginning or in other words, it was un created or unconstructed, but yet it exists. Then would you agree with him?

Yes I agree - if something has no beginning then it is uncreated. If something has not been created then I don't understand how it can exist.

 

I agree that the ideas, the options you present are incomprehensible (to me). I'm not sure that makes them illogical though. But then what is logic? Is it human comprehensibility? Is logic a human construct?

 

In any case, one of your three options must have occurred, since here we are. I prefer the "it came from something else" line because "something else" is not defined and therefore cannot be expected to be necessarily comprehensible to human minds.

[The Believer]

The problem is you are thinking in a nice straight linear fashion with a beginning, middle and end in this scenario but it just won't comply with the established parts of physics that we know, like conservation that I keep mentioning, to have a sudden start.

Well why wouldn't I think in straight linear fashion? I have a reason to think that way because that is how things are and that is how things are being observed from the macroscopic down to the microscopic level. Every event occurs in a linear fashion, from the past to the present to the future, from the beginning to the end. And the current understanding of the creation of the universe and its evolution is nothing but a linear event.

And if the conservation of energy doesn't allow it to have a suddden start then it is absolutely clear that it should not have existed. why and how can it exist or evolve to the current state if it was not started? But actually it exists and we are here, and I feel then there must be something that the law of conservation of energy fails to explain. No matter what, you can only have two options, either it was created or it was not. But Since you agree that it was not created according to conservation of energy, then you have to explain if it was not created or started then why and how does it exist? If you do not start the engine of your car, can it take you anywhere?

I agree that the ideas, the options you present are incomprehensible (to me). I'm not sure that makes them illogical though.

well If you believe in observable, demonstrable and testable and possible reality of nature then I believe that with a deeper thought you will find them illogical.

 

But then what is logic? Is it human comprehensibility? Is logic a human construct?

 

 

I believe logic is a way of presenting certain possible and observable conditions that enables a human mind to comprehend the ultimate reality of nature.

I prefer the "it came from something else" line because "something else" is not defined and therefore cannot be expected to be necessarily comprehensible to human minds.

 

 

Even if "something else" is not defined, you can never get rid of the ultimate question that will arise as where from that "something else" come? will you then say that "something else" came from another "something else" ? This way you are doing no solution to the problem here. All you are doing is going back farther and farther into the past and becoming a witness of infinite number of "cause and effect" events.

Let us suppose you have reached the most distant and ultimate point of time in the past and you find the "ultimate something" that gave birth to all the other latter "something else" that gave birth to our current universe. Now at this point you can not ask where from this "ultimate something" come from because you have reached the beginning of the time and there was no prior cause to that "ultimate something". So the only options that you can have is to either believe that it came from "absolute nothing" or it "always existed". But as I have said in my earlier arguments, both these options are impossible and illogical or in other words, logic fails at this ultimate point.

So all I am saying is either you believe in magic or a failing logic. The choice is yours.

[Moontanman]

So all I am saying is either you believe in magic or a failing logic. The choice is yours.

 

 

Which is of course a false dichotomy...

 

Not to mention a straw man...

[The Believer]

 

 

 

Which is of course a false dichotomy...

 

Not to mention a straw man...

 

a false dichotomy? How is it a false dichotomy? could you please elaborate and prove your point?

 

And how does my argument fall under the category of "straw man"? Can you prove your point or are you simply making a false accusation?

[Moontanman]

a false dichotomy? How is it a false dichotomy? could you please elaborate and prove your point?

 

And how does my argument fall under the category of "straw man"? Can you prove your point or are you simply making a false accusation?

 

 

It's a false dichotomy because you cannot establish with any certainty that those are the only two possibilities, it's a straw man because you want everyone else to argue your points that you have arbitrarily assigned as the only points and it's an argument from incredulity because you can't imagine how there could be any other choices so you assume there are none...

[The Believer]

It's a false dichotomy because you cannot establish with any certainty that those are the only two possibilities,

Well what is there to establish? I have already argued with logic why those are the only two possibilities. Logic will allow only these two possibilities. When I argue that those are the only possibilities, it's other people's job to provide other possibilities if they exist and prove my argument wrong.

it's a straw man because you want everyone else to argue your points that you have arbitrarily assigned as the only points and it's an argument from incredulity because you can't imagine how there could be any other choices so you assume there are none..

 

 

Firstly, I have not assigned my points arbitrarily. I have derived my points from what logic allows. And secondly, it's not an argument from incredulity, because the reason why I can not imagine how there could be any other choices is that logic doesn't allow me to imagine any other choices.

And its not only me who can't imagine the possibility of any other choices, in fact I would like to claim that every human being including you can not imagine any other choices because logic will not allow you to think of any other possibilities.

And the hard truth is that, you can not refute the possibilities that I have presented. If you want to refute them then you have to prove them wrong and illogical using logic.

And also when I argue that there can not exist any other possibilities, my argument will remain true unless and until someone prove my arguments wrong by showing other possibilities.

So if you think there can exist any other possibilities than those given by me then you have to show them. if you can not then my argument will remain true and undisputed.

[Moontanman]

 

Well what is there to establish? I have already argued with logic why those are the only two possibilities. Logic will allow only these two possibilities. When I argue that those are the only possibilities, it's other people's job to provide other possibilities if they exist and prove my argument wrong.

 

Firstly, I have not assigned my points arbitrarily. I have derived my points from what logic allows. And secondly, it's not an argument from incredulity, because the reason why I can not imagine how there could be any other choices is that logic doesn't allow me to imagine any other choices.

And its not only me who can't imagine the possibility of any other choices, in fact I would like to claim that every human being including you can not imagine any other choices because logic will not allow you to think of any other possibilities.

And the hard truth is that, you can not refute the possibilities that I have presented. If you want to refute them then you have to prove them wrong and illogical using logic.

And also when I argue that there can not exist any other possibilities, my argument will remain true unless and until someone prove my arguments wrong by showing other possibilities.

So if you think there can exist any other possibilities than those given by me then you have to show them. if you can not then my argument will remain true and undisputed.

 

 

 

First of all I question your assertion of flawed logic, all you have is assertion as though your inability to grasp any other possibility is law. The idea that the universe came from something else is not flawed logic, that the universe came from magic is flawed but the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic.

[The Believer]

First of all I question your assertion of flawed logic, all you have is assertion as though your inability to grasp any other possibility is law.

my assertion is not a mere assertion. It's a conclusion derived from logical reasoning. And my inability to grasp any other possibility is not law. My ability or inability to grasp other possibility depends upon what logic allows.

The idea that the universe came from something else is not flawed logic, that the universe came from magic is flawed but the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic.

 

 

Ofcourse the idea that the universe came from something we do not know is not flawed logic. It means we do not know what that "something" is. But when we say that the universe came from "something", a question will ultimately arise as where that "something" come from?. The only possible answer will be that "something" came from "something else". So in this way, we can keep on going back farther into the past and never get the "ultimate something" which is the first cause of all other things. It does not matter whether we are able or unable to reach that point of time in past where we can get that "ultimate something". What matters is what logic allows.

Logic allows only two possibilities:

1. either there was a "ultimate something" or the first cause which was uncaused or

2. there was never a first cause.

The second possibility that "there was never a first cause" should be rejected because logicaly if there was never a first cause then the universe should not exist.

So we only have the first possibilty that there was a "first cause which was uncaused".

Now if there was a first cause which was uncaused then again we will ask where that "first uncaused cause" come from? We can not say that it came from something else because nothig existed before it as it is the first uncaused cause.

So we can have only two possibilities:

1. Either that "uncaused cause" came from absolute nothing, or

2. that "uncaused cause" always existed or had no beginning.

Both the possibilities are flawed logic because logically and practically nothing can come from absolute nothing and nothing can exist and continue to exist if it was never started or never had a beginning.

So finally, ultimately the idea that the universe came from something else ends up being a flawed logic.

[Moontanman]

I don't know is the only honest proposition, everything else is baseless speculation...

[The Believer]

 

I don't know is the only honest proposition, everything else is baseless speculation...

 

I appreciate your honest proposition. I don't know what "everything else" is but whatever I have presented in my thread is not baseless speculation. It is based on logic. It is based on what logic allows. It is based on what is possible and what has been observed to be possible practically and logically.

Edited October 29, 2013 by The Believer

[Moontanman]

 

I appreciate your honest proposition. I don't know what "everything else" is but whatever I have presented in my thread is not baseless speculation. It is based on logic. It is based on what logic allows. It is based on what is possible and what has been observed to be possible practically and logically.

 

 

I disagree, there are hypothesis that go beyond T=0, your logic of I can't explain it so it must be logically impossible is not logic at all, it is a strawman, yes a strawman, you are setting up a false analogy of what had to happen. I see no reason to assume the universe came from nothing just because we haven't worked it out at this time. At one time the same logic would have applied to the formation of the Earth but more information resulted in an explanation of how the Earth formed...