Atheist Universe: Not Impossible

Status
Not open for further replies.

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
imo, time essentially is a human construct;
Why sure, just like any concept.

we've created 'time' so we can have work schedules and mundane on-time oppointments. time didn't exist until people made the idea.
I would agree, but then again the same is true about space, laws, physics, logic etc.

Time really doesnt exist at all, regardless of space, laws, physics, logic, etc. Logically, it only exists bc people think it does.
I´m not sure I understand why - of all human concepts - you single out "time" and postulate that all other human concepts (like "logic", "space", "laws", "physics" are somewhat more real. Sounds like a pretty arbitrary distinction to me, a double standard that you accept solely because your thesis would collapse without it. But maybe I am missing something here.
 
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟12,839.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is true if the subject matter is under the laws of logic.
so, you're arguing outside of logic?

so, you're arguing that you understand what, by definition, cannot be known? and you're further arguing that you don't understand this logically, or even by a logical means?

if you're willing to argue outside of logic, then why don't you allow me the same privilege?

I don't think that the ability to disobey the laws of logic would count as a restriction.
how so?

btw, are you willing to submit that, logically, you're wrong?


There is no logical connection between these two statements.
the (2) was there as a reference to the number 2 in the statement above it.

in other words, nothing is nothing. of course that's logically. you could argue that nothing is not nothing, like you are, but that would be illogical. . . . . . but seeing that we're granting the illogical now, i guess that's fine.....


you're welcome to try to either disprove logic as a whole, or try to prove the existence of something outside of logic any time.

the simple fact is, you can't prove something that shares no contingency with and from anything else known.



Daniel777 misunderstands the word 'lack'. He's right, inasmuch as his definition allows.
explain.


if i lack something, that means i don't have it. if i lack nothing, that means i have (at least) something. if i lack everything, that means i have nothing.

a restriction is something that the thing in question can "not" do. ie, rocks are restricted from being butterflies on their own because they are rocks and have not capacity to be or become butterflies. a restriction in the ultimate sense (all restriction) means that the thing in question cannot do anything.

keeping these two definitions in mind, lets construct a statement in the framework of "nothing lacks all restrictions".

"nothing does not have the capacity to not do anything."

which, in other words, is a double negative statement, which is the same as "Bob cannot journey not to a store". in this case, the statement shows that Bob can't journey anywhere but to a store. every time he goes somewhere, his destination has to be a "store"....

so, apply this to the statement "nothing does not have the capacity to not do anything". this means that nothing must always be "something" and must always be "acting".

in other words, you're saying that "nothing isn't nothing" but stating a double negative and, in essence, nothing is something since it cannot, not act.

further, in your original definition of "nothing" you defined it as the "lack of all things"; this further disagrees with your statement that "nothing lacks all restrictions" since it is a double negative that twists the definition of nothing.

i'm think throughout this whole thing, i've listed at least 5 different ways why this argument is wrong, and not one of them has been answered satisfactorily.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
You said: "if nothing lacks all restrictions, then nothing also lacks itself"

This is only true if you have special definitions of the words 'nothing', 'to lack', and 'restrict'. That is, if your definitions match those established in this thread, then it is not true that "nothing lacks itself", since the phrase is nonsensical.

so, apply this to the statement "nothing does not have the capacity to not do anything". this means that nothing must always be "something" and must always be "acting".
Non sequitur: a) your above definitions do not match my own, so you're committing the equivocation fallacy, b) even though you've built a strawman of my claims, you fail to topple even that, and c) your conclusion does not in any way lead from your premises (please demonstrate otherwise).

further, in your original definition of "nothing" you defined it as the "lack of all things"; this further disagrees with your statement that "nothing lacks all restrictions" since it is a double negative that twists the definition of nothing.
Nope: your confusion lies in your conflation of 'nothing', 'no thing', and 'nothingness'.

i'm think throughout this whole thing, i've listed at least 5 different ways why this argument is wrong, and not one of them has been answered satisfactorily.
From your point of view, perhaps. Doesn't mean the refutation of your counterarguments doesn't exist in this thread.
 
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟12,839.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is only true if you have special definitions of the words 'nothing', 'to lack', and 'restrict'. That is, if your definitions match those established in this thread, then it is not true that "nothing lacks itself", since the phrase is nonsensical.

a) your above definitions do not match my own, so you're committing the equivocation fallacy

define them your way then.


even though you've built a strawman of my claims, you fail to topple even that
it's not a strawman. define your terms, and i'll correct my argument.

your conclusion does not in any way lead from your premises (please demonstrate otherwise).
you quoted me as saying:

"nothing does not have the capacity to not do anything". this means that nothing must always be "something" and must always be "acting".


if nothing cannot do not-anything, it has to be doing something.... if nothing cannot be not-anything, then it must be something.


what don't you understand specifically? i'll be happy to explain.


Nope: your confusion lies in your conflation of 'nothing', 'no thing', and 'nothingness'.
do you mind defining what you mean by each term and showing how i confused them?


From your point of view, perhaps. Doesn't mean the refutation of your counterarguments doesn't exist in this thread.
well, according to you two, that's because i've been arguing logically.




EDIT:

also, one of my arguments was that, ontologically, nothing is nothing, and therefore must be nothing.

so, the definition of "nothing" is really irrelevant, since, even without a perfectly known definition, we can be certain that a thing is limited by the being of itself, or by the "is" of itself. in other words, nothing "is" nothing, and nothing is highly restricted in that sense. even if we can't define or comprehend nothing, nothing is nothing, and that is a restriction.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PhilosophicalBluster

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)
Dec 2, 2008
888
50
✟16,346.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hmm, I think we would get further in this conversation if we were to stop arguing about whether this premise is logical or not, and start arguing about whether the laws of logic can ever not exist. Of course this whole conversation is just speculation and none of us can actually know what is or is not true, but I believe that logic only exists in the universe, and were the universe to be non-existent, the laws of logic would not be existent either. Therefore I arrive on the premise that whatever happened before the universe was in existence does not have to obey the laws of logic.
 
Upvote 0

R3quiem

Senior Veteran
Jun 25, 2007
5,862
216
In your head.
✟14,623.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
imo, time essentially is a human construct; we've created 'time' so we can have work schedules and mundane on-time oppointments. time didn't exist until people made the idea.

Time really doesnt exist at all, regardless of space, laws, physics, logic, etc. Logically, it only exists bc people think it does.
I disagree.

Einstein proved that time and space are directly linked together as spacetime. One does not exist without the other.

So, if you consider space and dimension to be something that exists outside of human comprehension, then you would have to logically agree that time does as well. If you're going to argue that space does not exist either, then that's another story...
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
define them your way then.
'Nothing' and 'nothingness' refer to different things: the former is shorthand for 'no thing', and the latter refers to the absence of any thing.

you quoted me as saying:

"nothing does not have the capacity to not do anything". this means that nothing must always be "something" and must always be "acting".


if nothing cannot do not-anything, it has to be doing something.... if nothing cannot be not-anything, then it must be something.[/quote]
Agreed, but that is a paradox: we only have a state of nothingness (which is what I assume you mean by 'nothing') when there is an absence of any thing, so 'it' cannot be some thing, because that violates its definition.

what don't you understand specifically? i'll be happy to explain.
Oh, I understand it, I just don't see where you're going with it. I fully agree that, if nothingness cannot not be any thing, then it must be some thing, but no one here is claiming that.

well, according to you two, that's because i've been arguing logically.
Your logic is flawed, as we keep trying to show you.

EDIT:

also, one of my arguments was that, ontologically, nothing is nothing, and therefore must be nothing.

so, the definition of "nothing" is really irrelevant, since, even without a perfectly known definition, we can be certain that a thing is limited by the being of itself, or by the "is" of itself. in other words, nothing "is" nothing, and nothing is highly restricted in that sense. even if we can't define or comprehend nothing, nothing is nothing, and that is a restriction.
Well, obviously nothingness is restricted by the laws of logic (of which the law of identity is the one you're citing). I didn't think that needed stating. But the point is that nothingness is not restricted by anything else because, by definition (and thus beyond mere tautologies), there cannot be anything else. For nothingness to be restricted by more than the laws of logic, some thing must exist. But, by definition, this is false. Therefore, no thing exists.
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Hmm, I think we would get further in this conversation if we were to stop arguing about whether this premise is logical or not, and start arguing about whether the laws of logic can ever not exist. Of course this whole conversation is just speculation and none of us can actually know what is or is not true, but I believe that logic only exists in the universe, and were the universe to be non-existent, the laws of logic would not be existent either. Therefore I arrive on the premise that whatever happened before the universe was in existence does not have to obey the laws of logic.

Logic is a tool of the mind to understand our world. Logic does not exist outside the mind. To the extent that logic is a tool the mind uses, and the mind is what the brain does, and the brain is made up of matter and energy of the universe, I suppose the one could extrapolate the notion that logic is a property of the universe.

But for different reasons, I agree with your assertion that logic did not have to exist before the universe. Assuming a "before the universe" is even possible, I don't think anything can be rationally asserted about it, period. Pure speculation.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Logic is a tool of the mind to understand our world. Logic does not exist outside the mind. To the extent that logic is a tool the mind uses, and the mind is what the brain does, and the brain is made up of matter and energy of the universe, I suppose the one could extrapolate the notion that logic is a property of the universe.
Logic is more than a construct of the mind: logic is how we go from a set of statements and make conclusions that are just as true as their premises (that is, if the initial statements are true, then so too is the conclusion).

Logic is a set of more fundamental statements and the interplay between them. This is true regardless of whether there is any mind to conceive of them.

More generally, the truth of a statement is independent of whether there exists any mind to conceive it.

But for different reasons, I agree with your assertion that logic did not have to exist before the universe. Assuming a "before the universe" is even possible, I don't think anything can be rationally asserted about it, period. Pure speculation.
On the contrary, we can assert with absolute confidence that it existed during a time before the universe formed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Logic is more than a construct of the mind: logic is how we go from a set of statements and make conclusions that are just as true as their premises (that is, if the initial statements are true, then so too is the conclusion).

Logic is a set of more fundamental statements and the interplay between them. This is true regardless of whether there is any mind to conceive of them.
Statements cannot exist apart from a mind to comprehend those statements. It's meaningless. Abstract statements and conclusions are a product of the mind. Such may represent an actual state of affairs independent of the mind, but the statements and conclusions in and of themselves do not have an existence independent of the mind.

More generally, the truth of a statement is independent of whether there exists any mind to conceive it.
The issue wouldn't even come up without a mind. This is wholly different from whether a tree makes a noise in the woods if there is no sentient consciousness present to observe it. This can be empirically shown that the tree does make noise if there is no one there to hear it. But there is no evidence an abstract concept of the mind can exist independently of the mind.

On the contrary, we can assert with absolute confidence that it existed during a time before the universe formed.
Considering time came into existence with the initial expansion of the singularity, I think there are some real issues with this assertion. On what basis do we gain this absolute confidence? The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument? I don't see it. Only an appeal to a divine being that is also conscious and logical can this assertion be made. But this begs the question, doesn't it?
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟31,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Statements cannot exist apart from a mind to comprehend those statements. It's meaningless. Abstract statements and conclusions are a product of the mind. Such may represent an actual state of affairs independent of the mind, but the statements and conclusions in and of themselves do not have an existence independent of the mind.
Statements do not exist at all, mind or no mind. Nonetheless, they do have truth values, and that is independent of whether any mind is contemplating them. One plus one doesn't stop being equal to two when everyone stops thinking about it.

The issue wouldn't even come up without a mind. This is wholly different from whether a tree makes a noise in the woods if there is no sentient consciousness present to observe it. This can be empirically shown that the tree does make noise if there is no one there to hear it. But there is no evidence an abstract concept of the mind can exist independently of the mind.
See above: concepts to not exist in any meaningful sense.

Considering time came into existence with the initial expansion of the singularity, I think there are some real issues with this assertion.
Did it? We can probe no further than just after the start of the Big Bang, so we don't know what, if anything, happened before it. It may have been the dawn of time, but there is nothing to suggest that this is the case.

On what basis do we gain this absolute confidence?
Semantics: this hypothetical 'before the universe' thing is, by definition, before the universe.

The ontological argument, the teleological argument, the cosmological argument? I don't see it. Only an appeal to a divine being that is also conscious and logical can this assertion be made. But this begs the question, doesn't it?
I honestly don't know how got theology from my post.
 
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟12,839.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
'Nothing' and 'nothingness' refer to different things: the former is shorthand for 'no thing', and the latter refers to the absence of any thing.

actually, the latter is the state of 'no-thing'.

Agreed, but that is a paradox: we only have a state of nothingness (which is what I assume you mean by 'nothing') when there is an absence of any thing, so 'it' cannot be some thing, because that violates its definition.
exactly. . . . and i assumed you meant "nothingness" as well when you said "nothing lacks all restrictions".


that's basically all i was trying to do, show how the statement "nothing lacks all restrictions" is wrong. it's your statement, and isn't that your premise?





Oh, I understand it, I just don't see where you're going with it. I fully agree that, if nothingness cannot not be any thing, then it must be some thing, but no one here is claiming that.

didn't you claim that nothing lacks all restrictions? if you agree with me on my definitions, then your premise is essentially "nothing is something".

Your logic is flawed, as we keep trying to show you.
really? i don't remember any of that?

first, my logic is flawed because i'm actually using logic.

second, my logic is flawed because you say so without any reason...

i'll tell you what. out of the five different arguments i've given against this, pick one and list it out in order from premise to conclusion and tell me where it's wrong. i've done this for you twice before.


Well, obviously nothingness is restricted by the laws of logic (of which the law of identity is the one you're citing).
alright.

I didn't think that needed stating.
well, i did since you said that "nothing lacks all restrictions"

But the point is that nothingness is not restricted by anything else because, by definition (and thus beyond mere tautologies), there cannot be anything else.
so nothing doesn't lack all restrictions?


well, that's one step up from where we were.




For nothingness to be restricted by more than the laws of logic, some thing must exist. But, by definition, this is false. Therefore, no thing exists.

and how exactly is that "state" supposed to produce something if nothing is nothing?

in other words, how is the state of lacking all things supposed to produce "something"?

nothing as itself is enough to prevent something... where would "something" come from inclusive to "the state of the lack of all things".


your revised premise is that "nothingness lacks all restrictions except the restriction of identity"
-----
what you're failing to realize here is that when you say "nothing lacks all restrictions except identity" is that a restriction is an absence.

for instance:
when i say "a rock is restricted from becoming a butterfly". i'm telling you something that the rock cannot do because of what the rock "is not".

the rock "does not" have the capacity to become a butterfly.
the rock is restricted to having the capacity to become a butterfly.

john can not continue running because he hits a wall.
john is restricted from continuing to run because he hits a wall.

so, saying that nothing lacks restrictions is essentially saying that nothing lacks absence.

however, nothing is absence, so nothing cannot lack absence.

labeled out for you:
2 points to understand before the argument:
i. nothingness is a negative term, meaning it's defined by what it isn't. nothingness is the absence of everything.
ii. restriction is also a negative term of sorts, meaning it defines what the object in question can not do, or be.

argument:
1. nothingness is the state of absence
2. restrictions are explanations of absences towards the object in question.
3. therefore, since nothingness is the state of absence, nothing has all restrictions.

i'm about to go into more detail with 3, but first do you understand that? let me know if you need me to go over anything.

a restriction is firstly an explanation, and since it's an explanation:

3. nothingness doesn't have restrictions in the sense that there is no one their to label them. (this lies on the word "explanation".)
3. nothingness does have restrictions in the sense that there actually are defined restrictions whether we know about them or not, based on the law of identity.

conclusion:
since nothingness is the state of the absence of everything, and since nothingness is nothingness, nothingness has all absences. Because nothingness has all absences, nothingness has all restrictions based on the identity principle of nothingness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟12,839.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Statements do not exist at all, mind or no mind. Nonetheless, they do have truth values, and that is independent of whether any mind is contemplating them. One plus one doesn't stop being equal to two when everyone stops thinking about it.
glad to hear you say that.
 
Upvote 0

PhilosophicalBluster

Existential Good-for-Nothing (See: Philosopher)
Dec 2, 2008
888
50
✟16,346.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Daniel777 said:
conclusion:
since nothingness is the state of the absence of everything, and since nothingness is nothingness, nothingness has all absences. Because nothingness has all absences, nothingness has all restrictions based on the identity principle of nothingness.

That is true of the nothingness that exists within our universe, vacuum. Pre-universe nothingness does not have to follow the identity principle of nothingness, because the identity principle is based on post-universe logic, which pre-universe nothingness does not have to follow (of course this is an assumption, but if the premise is correct, it still applies).

Really what seems to be happening is that we are both stating the same premises over and over, because no ground can be made against either. My premise could be true, but Daniel's rebuttle could negate that. As this can only be speculation, and nobody can know what actually happened, I vote that we agree to disagree.

In closing, however, I believe that this premise accomplishes my goal for the thread which is to show that a universe without G-d is plausible. It is not provable, but it is not disprovable either, which is why the thread is called "Atheist Universe: Not Impossible" instead of "Atheist Universe: this is beyond a doubt what actually happened" ^_^
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Wyzaard

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2008
3,458
746
✟7,200.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
labeled out for you:
2 points to understand before the argument:
i. nothingness is a negative term, meaning it's defined by what it isn't. nothingness is the absence of everything.

Including this definition? If so, then this domain is utterly indeterminable, thus opening the door for spontaneous creation.


ii. restriction is also a negative term of sorts, meaning it defines what the object in question can not do, or be.

If it's an object, then we're neither talking about your 'nothing' or his 'nothing'.

argument:
1. nothingness is the state of absence
2. restrictions are explanations of absences towards the object in question.
3. therefore, since nothingness is the state of absence, nothing has all restrictions.

If so, then NO creation could possibly exist no matter what/who intervened (it's restricted from being the grounding for creation)... you might want to re-check your math.

3. nothingness doesn't have restrictions in the sense that there is no one their to label them. (this lies on the word "explanation".)
3. nothingness does have restrictions in the sense that there actually are defined restrictions whether we know about them or not, based on the law of identity.

:confused:


since nothingness is the state of the absence of everything, and since nothingness is nothingness, nothingness has all absences. Because nothingness has all absences, nothingness has all restrictions based on the identity principle of nothingness.

Which means it possesses an absence of nothingness as well, meaning it could be everything and anything? EEEK!
 
Upvote 0

tcampen

Veteran
Jul 14, 2003
2,704
151
✟18,632.00
Faith
Unitarian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Statements do not exist at all, mind or no mind. Nonetheless, they do have truth values, and that is independent of whether any mind is contemplating them. One plus one doesn't stop being equal to two when everyone stops thinking about it.
The whole issue is irrelevent unless something thinks about it. Where does the truth value of 1+1=2 exist apart from the mind? I understand what you are asserting in the abstract, but in real, concrete terms, I don't see even the "truest" of mathmatical equations existing at all apart from a mind to conceive of it.

Did it? We can probe no further than just after the start of the Big Bang, so we don't know what, if anything, happened before it. It may have been the dawn of time, but there is nothing to suggest that this is the case. ......Semantics: this hypothetical 'before the universe' thing is, by definition, before the universe.
I see your point here. While I do believe there is reason to suggest time began with the Big Bang (see Hawkings), there is clearly the philosophical issue of "before the universe." Now, whether asking that question really is like asking "what is north of the north pole?" I don't know. The "before" question creates something of an actual infinite into the past, which I am still grappling with, for I reject the notion that an atemporal being can create anything, let alone a temporal universe and then selectively interact with it. Perhaps it would be most prudent to just say "we don't know."

honestly don't know how got theology from my post.
my bad. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I can´t help it:
Whenever I see "nothingness" presented as the keyterm in an argument I´ll push the sophistry alert button.
Whenever people discuss the "properties of nothingness" I know that they believe that a concept must be meaningful just because there´s a word for it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

daniel777

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2007
4,050
154
America
✟12,839.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Including this definition? If so, then this domain is utterly indeterminable, thus opening the door for spontaneous creation.
go back and read how i defined "everything".

also, this definition doesn't have to be inclusive to nothingness in order to describe it.


also, that was the way wc defined nothingness, so i'm just staying on track with him.

If it's an object, then we're neither talking about your 'nothing' or his 'nothing'.

if "nothing" is object or if "restriction" is an object?

If so, then NO creation could possibly exist no matter what/who intervened (it's restricted from being the grounding for creation)... you might want to re-check your math.
exactly... i don't think there ever was a nothingness. it can't exist.

what i think and believe: before the world, there was God.... nothing else.


if something exists or doesn't exist, it exists or doesn't exist as itself. if it doesn't exist or not exist as itself, then it isn't itself. existence or non-existence is a non-issue.

if something is itself, that means it is restricted by the nature of itself whether we know of these restrictions or not.

it's basically the same as saying "nothingness is nothingness"... whatever that means, we don't have to know.... but if we posit that there is such a thing as "nothingness" we also posit that it is itself.

Which means it possesses an absence of nothingness as well, meaning it could be everything and anything? EEEK!
not quite... if i didn't post the last 7 words, you might be right.


but more too the point here.... you have to read "nothingness" into the word "everything" in my statement before you can conclude that nothingness is everything.... so, you made that supposition yourself. it has nothing to do with what i said.



I can´t help it:
Whenever I see "nothingness" presented as the keyterm in an argument I´ll push the sophistry alert button.
Whenever people discuss the "properties of nothingness" I know that they believe that a concept must be meaningful just because there´s a word for it.

agreed....

i for one think it's a meaningless term.... and even if somebody supposes that "nothingness" is meaningful, they can't pull "something" from it.
-------------------------
That is true of the nothingness that exists within our universe, vacuum. Pre-universe nothingness does not have to follow the identity principle of nothingness, because the identity principle is based on post-universe logic, which pre-universe nothingness does not have to follow (of course this is an assumption, but if the premise is correct, it still applies).
well, even if i grant you all that, i think it would only be fair if you allowed me to argue from "outside" of logic as well.

example:
you're wrong because unicorns enjoy bubble gum.


Really what seems to be happening is that we are both stating the same premises over and over, because no ground can be made against either. My premise could be true, but Daniel's rebuttle could negate that. As this can only be speculation, and nobody can know what actually happened, I vote that we agree to disagree.

well, i'll agree to disagree with you. :) i like you. :p

In closing, however, I believe that this premise accomplishes my goal for the thread which is to show that a universe without G-d is plausible. It is not provable, but it is not disprovable either, which is why the thread is called "Atheist Universe: Not Impossible" instead of "Atheist Universe: this is beyond a doubt what actually happened"
well, i wouldn't agree that your argument is "plausible" by any stretch of reason. . . . maybe a huge stretch of the imagination, but it's just not reasonable. i wouldn't say that it's not "possible" though.... however, i would say that it's not logically possible, reasonable, or meaningful.

i also wouldn't agree that it's not "disprovable"; because it is.

and i would agree that the atheist universe is possible beyond what we can know and what i know, but i obviously don't think or believe that it is. :p

peace mate. :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.