God the middleman

[Paulomycin]

OK, here is one: Maybe something equivalent to a quantum effect triggered a huge Big Bang out of nothing.

Last I checked, "Ex nihilo nihil fit" was still an axiom.

It's like Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair, only you're trying to do the exact same thing without Baron Munchausen.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, the statement "Every effect has an antecedent cause." is analytically true. Just like the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man." Or "two plus two are four." Aristotle has classified six causes. The cause we are discussing here is the "efficient cause."

ga: Yes. But the statement that causal relationships exist in reality is a synthetic proposition, and it is this proposition that acts as a premise in cosmological arguments.

My argument is based on the analytically true statement.
↑

ed: As I stated earlier, many years ago we were not sure logic worked in outer space, but we made the rational assumption that it did and it was later confirmed that it did with space travel. So also, we are not certain that logic works "outside" the universe, but it is rational to assume it does until proven someday.

ga: It’s not logic that’s being doubted here, it’s metaphysical claims about reality. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy — the fallacy of composition — to presume that because components of the universe work in a certain way, the entire universe itself must work in that way as well.

But the universe itself has all the characteristics of an effect as a WHOLE not its components. No FoC here.
↑

ed: Actually some have and do. Such as Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking (before he became an atheist), Arno Penzias, and several others I could name. But of course, most are not going to claim it is the Christian God because they would be ostracized and probably fired for being a fundamentalist.

ga: Publishing data that strongly indicated the existence of God would be incredibly lucrative. They’d instantly have the support and funding of massive religious institutions, and the scientific community at large would have a new rich vein of study to investigate. The fact that no scientist has come forward with such data isn’t a conspiracy, it’s just good skepticism.

You obviously have not spent much time with the scientific establishment and academia, the commitment to Naturalism is much stronger and entrenched than you realize. And the existence of God has too many ramifications for peoples individual lives and how they spend their time so money is not that attractive under those circumstances. Though Davies and Hawking have made a little more money than those that did not think the evidence pointed toward God.

 

[Paulomycin]

Our universe has galaxies that are crashing into one another...how is that “order”?

It's not "chaos." So, if you're proposing a 3rd category between order and chaos, then that's all on you.

 

[Paulomycin]

My favorite part is that Christians cite our lack of understanding of dark matter and dark energy as evidence that the universe is so complicated and ordered that an intelligence was required to effectively balance a dinner plate on a pencil tip, but then when we fine tune Big Bang simulations to fudge the numbers (due to not understanding the dark stuff) they say, "Look, the universe is finely tuned!"

Almost as-if you're implying a problem where there isn't any.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When did I misquote you?

We already went over it. We've been going over it for years.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Last I checked, "Ex nihilo nihil fit" was still an axiom.

An axiom in what system? If you think axioms are "true" then please tell me whether Euclidean geometry is true or non-Euclidean geometry is true. Lol.

It's like Baron Munchausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair, only you're trying to do the exact same thing without Baron Munchausen.

I don't think you properly understand what nothing is. If nothing exists, there are no rules. In particular, your precious axioms don't exist. Even if your axiom had some kind of stranglehold on reality (it doesn't), it would only be a physical rule of reality that from nothing, nothing comes. Absent reality, if nothing exists, then your rule does not exist. So there is no rule stating that from nothing, nothing comes. So why would you expect it to be true? The reality is that your axiom is self-refuting.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

 

[Paulomycin]

An axiom in what system? If you think axioms are "true" then please tell me whether Euclidean geometry is true or non-Euclidean geometry is true. Lol.

Oh, so you believe something can come from nothing? Lawrence Krauss tried it, but his "nothing" was actually something. So much for the bait & switch.

I don't think you properly understand what nothing is.

For one thing, it's not anything you can claim "is," to begin with.

If nothing exists, there are no rules.

Math/logic don't rely on empirical "things." It's quite the reverse, actually.

In particular, your precious axioms don't exist.

Does this mean you're an absurdist?

Even if your axiom had some kind of stranglehold on reality (it doesn't),

Because you magically assert it on your own authority alone?

it would only be a physical rule of reality that from nothing, nothing comes.

Or, "non-A equals non-A."

Absent reality,

You have no evidence to support your claim of "reality."

if nothing exists, then your rule does not exist.

Because we have something, rather than nothing. Which leads to the big question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, so you believe something can come from nothing?

Did I say that? Nope. Focus on your reading comprehension skills.

Lawrence Krauss tried it, but his "nothing" was actually something. So much for the bait & switch.

What's that got to do with the price of tea?

For one thing, it's not anything you can claim "is," to begin with.

Correct.

Math/logic don't rely on empirical "things." It's quite the reverse, actually.

And this has what to do with what?

Does this mean you're an absurdist?



Because you magically assert it on your own authority alone?



Or, "non-A equals non-A."



You have no evidence to support your claim of "reality."



Because we have something, rather than nothing. Which leads to the big question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Blah blah blah, a bunch of evasion. Your position was eviscerated, and no amount of song and dance on your end will change that.

 

[Paulomycin]

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.

Then you reject law of identity.

 

[Paulomycin]

Did I say that? Nope. Focus on your reading comprehension skills.

Then it's indisputable that nothing comes from nothing.

What's that got to do with the price of tea?

It's simply the usual response I get. At least you're trying to be unique in that regard.

Correct.

Good. Then "nothing" is literally "no thing."

And this has what to do with what?

Measurable empirical evidence relies on math. Not the other way around.

Blah blah blah, a bunch of evasion. Your position was eviscerated, and no amount of song and dance on your end will change that.

Because you magically asserted this on your own authority alone??

If tautological axioms don't exist, then you must be an absurdist. Lots of atheists are absurdists. Nothing to be ashamed of. Isn't that what your handle is all about? Why didn't you just admit you're an existential absurdist? That's the only kind of atheist I freely admit that I can't debate.

non-A equals non-A.

 

[disciple Clint]

It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.



And in case zero, you need to account for the source of God. Please proceed

Once again, one possibility is that some basic forces and particles always existed.

It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.

A vacuum is a something it is not a nothing it also requires a cause. What is the cause?

Once again, one possibility is that some basic forces and particles always existed.

Since this is part of a physical it requires a source, What is the source?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then it's indisputable that nothing comes from nothing.

No. You're not using logic properly. Just because I don't assert X doesn't automatically mean I assert its negation.

It's simply the usual response I get. At least you're trying to be unique in that regard.



Good. Then "nothing" is literally "no thing."

Yes, what else did you think?

Measurable empirical evidence relies on math. Not the other way around.

Even if this is true, I asked you which system you're referring to. You do realize that axioms exist within systems, right? Which axiomatic system uses your axiom? I didn't see it in the ZF or DP axioms.

Are you saying that the universe is not only built on mathematics, but also on philosophy? You have to smuggle that in. Where in science or mathematics do we use your axiom? And again, is Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry "true"? It can't be both, can it? Well, it can, if you understand what an axiom is.

Because you magically asserted this on your own authority alone??

Just tell me a condition of reality in which your axiom applies. From what I deduced, there is none.

If tautological axioms don't exist, then you must be an absurdist. Lots of atheists are absurdists. Nothing to be ashamed of. Isn't that what your handle is all about? Why didn't you just admit you're an existential absurdist? That's the only kind of atheist I freely admit that I can't debate.

You can't debate them why? I'm not going to label myself for a person who doesn't understand definitions.

non-A equals non-A.

Let A=7.

Then 8 is non-A. Also, 9 is non-A. According to you, 8=9.

 

[Paulomycin]

No. You're not using logic properly. Just because I don't assert X doesn't automatically mean I assert its negation.

Does this alleged "error" have a name?
You have no other rational options, so why not assert the negation? It only makes you look perfectly dodgy.

Yes, what else did you think?

Oh good, then let's keep it that way. That's pretty much the only way I prefer to define it.

Even if this is true, I asked you which system you're referring to. You do realize that axioms exist within systems, right? Which axiomatic system uses your axiom? I didn't see it in the ZF or DP axioms.

So you're evading the question by pretending you don't recognize which system that measurable empirical evidence relies on. Therefore, evidence is not measurable?

Are you saying that the universe is not only built on mathematics, but also on philosophy? You have to smuggle that in.

Not really. Everything is a philosophy claim to one extent or another, up to and including philosophy of science as well as philosophy of math.

Where in science or mathematics do we use your axiom?

You have no (rational) reason to reject it.

And again, is Euclidean or non-Euclidean geometry "true"? It can't be both, can it? Well, it can, if you understand what an axiom is.

Where's this implied "hierarchy" you're alleging?

Just tell me a condition of reality in which your axiom applies. From what I deduced, there is none.

Your own identity, for one thing. You can't argue anything without implying Aristotelian law of thought. You can't simply doubt them at whim. Not without showing your hand that you're cheating reason.

You can't debate them why?

Nihilists are a subcategory of existentialism that rejects the possibility of knowledge itself as well as meaning. They might be the same as absurdists, since I see Camus and Sartre on the same lists.

And this would of course include rejection of prescriptive logic. And I simply can't reason with someone who rejects reason. Which is why debate is impossible.

Can we agree on this? Or will you have to change your name? Because you're being perfectly inconsistent here.

 

[Paulomycin]

Then 8 is non-A. Also, 9 is non-A. According to you, 8=9.

You're contradicting yourself. Deliberately, I think.

 

[Moral Orel]

You're contradicting yourself. Deliberately, I think.

Quote mining. Here's the full quote that you should have used:

Let A=7.

Then 8 is non-A. Also, 9 is non-A. According to you, 8=9.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Does this alleged "error" have a name?
You have no other rational options, so why not assert the negation? It only makes you look perfectly dodgy.



Oh good, then let's keep it that way. That's pretty much the only way I prefer to define it.



So you're evading the question by pretending you don't recognize which system that measurable empirical evidence relies on. Therefore, evidence is not measurable?



Not really. Everything is a philosophy claim to one extent or another, up to and including philosophy of science as well as philosophy of math.



You have no (rational) reason to reject it.



Where's this implied "hierarchy" you're alleging?



Your own identity, for one thing. You can't argue anything without implying Aristotelian law of thought. You can't simply doubt them at whim. Not without showing your hand that you're cheating reason.



Nihilists are a subcategory of existentialism that rejects the possibility of knowledge itself as well as meaning. They might be the same as absurdists, since I see Camus and Sartre on the same lists.

And this would of course include rejection of prescriptive logic. And I simply can't reason with someone who rejects reason. Which is why debate is impossible.

Can we agree on this? Or will you have to change your name? Because you're being perfectly inconsistent here.

You're contradicting yourself. Deliberately, I think.

You're deliberately misquoting and removing context. I find that to be pathetic so I'm not going to bother reading anything from the first post I quoted here.

Your "axiom" that from nothing, nothing comes is self-refuting.

I said this:

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.


Your response was that I am disputing the law of identity. Can you explain?

 

[Paulomycin]

Quote mining. Here's the full quote that you should have used:

He's literally saying that "A" equals both 8 and 9 at the same time and in the same relationship. It's a pretty cheap dodge, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was just trying to play me.

 

[Paulomycin]

Your "axiom" that from nothing, nothing comes is self-refuting.

So you believe something comes from nothing. You have no other options.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

He's literally saying that "A" equals both 8 and 9 at the same time and in the same relationship. It's a pretty cheap dodge, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was just trying to play me.

I was only using your logic.