God

[SirNitram]

The validty of an argument is important to me. This is a forum about logic after all.

The usefulness of a long-winded pile of bullshit is important to me. Spewing out a giant pile of unsupported nonsense to say 'I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE PARADOX!!!!!' is not a useful contribution. Pardon me for thinking you're more than a presumptuous spammer.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The validty of an argument is important to me. This is a forum about logic after all.

So start using valid arguments and logic.

[arigo]

So start using valid arguments and logic.

oh, I have. I knew this wouldn't go over well here where the "impress your peers and join the bandwagon" is stronger than ever. I know a few will understand the implications, even if they don't say anything.

[Zero]

I understood your argument quite well, but you didn't even read mine, it seems. I did explain why a sentient being can't exist outside of space and time.

[Morilore]

That is part of my point actually, but really there are two possibilities, and I don't believe there is any evidence to indicate one way or another:

1. It took place as you said. It just happened, resulting in time and space as we know it restricted by natural law. There was nothing that caused it because time, at least in our universe, did not exist. It would be plausible to say everything came from nothing.

Yes, that's it, exactly.

"Not subject to explanation according to natural laws" is the very definition of supernatural.

Unrelated, but, OK...

To argue that a god does not exist since it is not a natural part of our universe is similar to arguing that our universe does not exist since it came from nothing.

First of all, how so, and secondly, where the hell did this come from?

Look, bub, we KNOW the universe exists. We have SEEN it, FELT it, TASTED it, and HAD SEX with it. So stop with this line of thought.

Both the existence of a universe and a god are special in that they do not necessarily have to follow any physical, and consequently logical expectations that we can hope to comprehend. This makes putting up a logically sound argument against either impossible.

Smoking the special crack you are. The universe is observed to follow physical and logical laws. That there is a wall of inscrutability at one end does not magically transform our world into a sophist's wet dream.

2. The Big Bang was triggered in some way. Time, at least in our universe, did not exist until the big bang, so what triggered it was not bound to any comprehension of space time. Alas, the cause of the trigger is subject to the to the same two options.

I'm going to try to make you understand something very, very obscure:
TIME = CAUSALITY
If time did not exist "until" the Big Bang, then BY DEFINITION THERE WAS NO TRIGGER.

I believe I've made that clear. You're either subjecting a god to rules of space/time it would not have to follow, or you are making the claim that what you do not experience does not exist.

Actually, it is generally accepted that what is not experienced (i.e. what does not interact) in any way does not, in fact, exist. If you say God exists outsided spacetime you basically say "HE'S THERE ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING ANYWHERE LIKE HIM NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!"

The validty of an argument is important to me. This is a forum about logic after all.

There is pure logical validity, and then there is usefulness, as in does this tell us anything we didn't already know. Balance them, you must.

oh, I have. I knew this wouldn't go over well here where the "impress your peers and join the bandwagon" is stronger than ever. I know a few will understand the implications, even if they don't say anything.

Subtle jabs at the forum itself on the heels of crushing defeat make you look like a bitter, worthless troll. Just FYI.

[arigo]

I understood your argument quite well, but you didn't even read mine, it seems. I did explain why a sentient being can't exist outside of space and time.

Sorry, I just got overwhelmed with it. I think your point is valid, but I don't know that a god would have to experience sentience through the passing of time. I think the "all powerful" argument is more of a play on semantics.

[Zero]

Can you at least describe how sentience is even possible without time? No form of realization can exist at all with no change, and self-realization is a large part of sentience.

[DPDarkPrimus]

So start using valid arguments and logic.

oh, I have. I knew this wouldn't go over well here where the "impress your peers and join the bandwagon" is stronger than ever.

Nitram posted a similar comment right before me. I haven't jumped in here and started refuting you, though, because enough people were doing that as is- but the post I quoted was short enough to reply to.

It should be pointed out that people only "hop on the bandwagon" to rip into the really stupid people.

I know a few will understand the implications, even if they don't say anything.

What implications might those be?

[arigo]

To argue that a god does not exist since it is not a natural part of our universe is similar to arguing that our universe does not exist since it came from nothing.
First of all, how so, and secondly, where the hell did this come from?

Look, bub, we KNOW the universe exists. We have SEEN it, FELT it, TASTED it, and HAD SEX with it. So stop with this line of thought.

I used it because both follow a similar thought process. I know the fact that we percieve the universe makes the fact that it exist obvious to everyone but the most philosphically oriented.

The universe is observed to follow physical and logical laws. That there is a wall of inscrutability at one end does not magically transform our world into a sophist's wet dream.

I fully agree.

I'm going to try to make you understand something very, very obscure:
TIME = CAUSALITY
If time did not exist "until" the Big Bang, then BY DEFINITION THERE WAS NO TRIGGER.

I know that, I even meant to express that. I'm not sure how it got lost on you in the translation, but I'll suck it up since you seem to be follow well enough so far.

Actually, it is generally accepted that what is not experienced (i.e. what does not interact) in any way does not, in fact, exist. If you say God exists outsided spacetime you basically say "HE'S THERE ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOTHING ANYWHERE LIKE HIM NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!"

Well, first of all, you're not referring to schrodinger's cat are you? Because that wasn't the intended implication at all. Secondly, the religious perspective is that intereaction does take place at some level. As I've maintained, I never meant imply they are right. It's just not a paradox under their set terms.

There is pure logical validity, and then there is usefulness, as in does this tell us anything we didn't already know. Balance them, you must.

Usefulness is entirely subjective. It is useful to be logically sound to me.

Subtle jabs at the forum itself on the heels of crushing defeat make you look like a bitter, worthless troll. Just FYI.

I'm far from the cruhsing heels of defeat, and I think I'm being fairly light on most considering their attitude towards me.

[arigo]

Can you at least describe how sentience is even possible without time? No form of realization can exist at all with no change, and self-realization is a large part of sentience.

Of course not. If a god exists and created the universe, there are a billion things I can't explain. It's just being "supernatural" acounts for this.

[Zero]

But by that logic, supernaturalness (not a word, I know) could be used to explain any damned thing you want it to. If we believe that there's any such thing as supernatural, we may as well fall back into believing that lightning and diseas are caused by God, and not static discharge and wierd little things that want to kill us. Lol. If we believe that anything is outside of physical laws and outside of logic, then we fall into a trap of using it to explain anything we don't immediately understand. I don't see the point in what you're saying. You were trying to make the point that claiming existance outside of space and time wasn't unreasonable, and I explained why it was, and all you did was said that it's all explained by being 'supernatural.' Is this supernaturalness an evasion?

[arigo]

But by that logic, supernaturalness (not a word, I know) could be used to explain any damned thing you want it to. If we believe that there's any such thing as supernatural, we may as well fall back into believing that lightning and diseas are caused by God, and not static discharge and wierd little things that want to kill us. Lol. If we believe that anything is outside of physical laws and outside of logic, then we fall into a trap of using it to explain anything we don't immediately understand. I don't see the point in what you're saying. You were trying to make the point that claiming existance outside of space and time wasn't unreasonable, and I explained why it was, and all you did was said that it's all explained by being 'supernatural.' Is this supernaturalness an evasion?

I really want to yank my hair out. You're absolutely right. Being supernatural could be used to wrongly explain anything we don't understand. I do not deny it, and this is why I find trying to project any sort of logical fallacy on a supernatural being to be so silly. At this point I'm willing to live with just that. I did have a few other implications from the get go, but I don't have the energy to argue them to the never ending end.

[Morilore]

Okay, arigo, once again, from the top: what are you trying to demonstrate?

I got stuck in the same trap a while ago. It is never good to lose sight of your goals.

Usefulness is entirely subjective. It is useful to be logically sound to me.

When I said useful, I meant: tells us something that we might use to change our behavior.

I'm far from the cruhsing heels of defeat, and I think I'm being fairly light on most considering their attitude towards me.

Just a fair warning. I reiterate: do not flame the community in general should you find yourself being piled-upon. It will lead you to a world of pain.

[spikenigma]

I thought one of the fundamental laws of physics are that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed and/or transfered - given this wouldn't everything we see around us not have a "first cause" so to speak.

I also don't understand why people say spacetime itself started with the big bang. Why could spacetime both have existed forever before the BB and forever after it?

I thought the big bang was just an explosion of matter, where is the proof that at it's event time+space was created?

[General Zod]

I thought one of the fundamental laws of physics are that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed and/or transfered - given this wouldn't everything we see around us not have a "first cause" so to speak.

I also don't understand why people say spacetime itself started with the big bang. Why could spacetime both have existed forever before the BB and forever after it?

I thought the big bang was just an explosion of matter, where is the proof that at it's event time+space was created?

putting it in layman's terms, time is just another dimension, much like height, width and depth. until the big bang, this dimension did not exist.

[Ghost Rider]

I thought one of the fundamental laws of physics are that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed and/or transfered - given this wouldn't everything we see around us not have a "first cause" so to speak.

I also don't understand why people say spacetime itself started with the big bang. Why could spacetime both have existed forever before the BB and forever after it?

I thought the big bang was just an explosion of matter, where is the proof that at it's event time+space was created?

The big bang first and foremost was not an explosion of matter. In the literal begininng the universe was infitismally small, a singularity....it expanded.

Thus there is nothing before it since, Matter was always there, along with time. There was no before since the Big Bang is the start of it, Space, Time, Matter. Asking what if before is asking "What's outside of Time and Space?"

[SirNitram]

So start using valid arguments and logic.

oh, I have. I knew this wouldn't go over well here where the "impress your peers and join the bandwagon" is stronger than ever. I know a few will understand the implications, even if they don't say anything.

Do you have an argument, troll? Beyond 'I'M RIGHT!!!!'?

[Ghost Rider]

And just for those wanting where the Big Bang came from...

In 1946, George Gamow, a Russian-born scientist, proposed that the primeval fireball, the "big bang," was an intense concentration of pure energy. It was the source of all the matter that now exists in the universe. The theory predicts that all the galaxies in the universe should be rushing away from each other at high speeds as a result of that initial big bang. A dictionary definition of the hot big bang theory is "the entire physical universe, all the matter and energy and even the four dimensions of time and space, burst forth from a state of infinite or near infinite density, temperature, and pressure."

And more on him

[SirNitram]

Can you at least describe how sentience is even possible without time? No form of realization can exist at all with no change, and self-realization is a large part of sentience.

Of course not. If a god exists and created the universe, there are a billion things I can't explain. It's just being "supernatural" acounts for this.

Logic sucks! I hate logic! I'll just claim SUPERNATURAL!!!! is a useful method of explaining things! Yes! IN YOUR FACE, LOGIC!

This bears as much relation to sensible logic and argumentation as my turds bear resemblence to solid gold.

[spikenigma]

putting it in layman's terms, time is just another dimension, much like height, width and depth. until the big bang, this dimension did not exist.

how do you know this?

like GR just posted in his quote, I would have thought the big bang was an explosion of energy. I don't understand where the basis for the assertion that x dimensions+time+space were created at that point comes from

The big bang first and foremost was not an explosion of matter. In the literal begininng the universe was infitismally small, a singularity....it expanded.

Thus there is nothing before it since, Matter was always there, along with time. There was no before since the Big Bang is the start of it, Space, Time, Matter. Asking what if before is asking "What's outside of Time and Space?"

we know the big bang happened because we have seen, mapped and traced the stellar phenomena in our universe rushing out from a single point, we have also detected the residual radiation from it.

I thought our knowledge began at the big bang - what is the conclusion that there was nothing before it based on?

(sorry) follow up question: what also is the big bang's mechanism for creating time+space and all the other dimensions?

[McC]

You guys are having an argument about whether something that cannot be proven or disproven. This is called "unfalsifiable." It is irrelevant and pointless (except as a matter of intellectual exercise) to argue something unfalsifiable, and typically a very safe bet to assume that anything unfalsifiable simply does not exist.

[SirNitram]

putting it in layman's terms, time is just another dimension, much like height, width and depth. until the big bang, this dimension did not exist.

how do you know this?

like GR just posted in his quote, I would have thought the big bang was an explosion of energy. I don't understand where the basis for the assertion that x dimensions+time+space were created at that point comes from

Did you, you know, read what GR posted? It very explicitly says the dimensions emanated from it.

I'm not sure how you expect us to condense the math for the dimensions coming from the Bang into something a layman can even make sense of, let alone understand.

[spikenigma]

Did you, you know, read what GR posted? It very explicitly says the dimensions emanated from it.

I'm not sure how you expect us to condense the math for the dimensions coming from the Bang into something a layman can even make sense of, let alone understand.

I did read it, and read through the link...

I don't know, surely you can try however...

[spikenigma]

sorry, I clicked submit instead of preview

my questions are as follows (for anyone to pick up)

1. Evidence/Proof/Thinking behined time+space beginning at the big bang

2. Mechanism for the big bang producing time+space+ all other dimensions

I suppose if these two are answered adequately then the question of what came "before" the big bang becomes meaningless...

[General Zod]

putting it in layman's terms, time is just another dimension, much like height, width and depth. until the big bang, this dimension did not exist.

how do you know this?

this page probably explains it alot better than i could.