where angels fear to tread

[Loudmouth]

I guess I would have to say "other". About 14 billion years ago there was the singularity that eventually expanded to become our universe. Or at least that's what the evidence points to. But beyond that, I have no idea so I'm hesitant to speculate.

Ditto.

 

[dysert]

This is going to be a chain of questions that is supposed to lead to the proving of genesis after much interpretation of cherry picked answers, isn't it?

The point of this thread is to try to clarify what others, particularly atheistic evolutionists (i.e., atheists who believe in evolution), believe about some specific items related to creation & evolution. I'm not interested in debating or arguing. I'm simply trying to get clarification of beliefs.

I'm nothing if not honest. I'm not out to try proving anything. I am seeking to understand and simplify the beliefs of others who I don't agree with.

 

[Dizredux]

Its not special knowledge, just logic.

A and (not A) are mutually exclusive.

That is Aristotelian logic which according to Copi's intro logic textbook is mostly used for developing truth tables.

So existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive.

Not necessarily. Keep in mind that deductive logic does not have to connect with reality. Inductive logic is another story but we are talking about deductive logic.

If there was absolute non-existence, then we would not exist today.

We have no idea what "absolute non-existence" might or might not be so you cannot really draw any conclusions from the concept.

Thus we are in a state of existence.

Again deductive logic does not have to have any relation to reality. It strictly applies to the form of the argument so your statement that A and (not A) are mutually exclusive is not necessarily a reflection on the world and and the statement "existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive." does not necessarily apply.

Science is mostly based on inductive logic so the conclusions of deductive logic do not really restrict it.

Interesting subject though.


Dizredux

 

[Elendur]

Its not special knowledge, just logic.

Ok.

A and (not A) are mutually exclusive.

I agree with this.

So existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive.

If there was absolute non-existence, then we would not exist today.

Thus we are in a state of existence.

This is where you mess up as only your first statement is a direct translation of the logical example you provided earlier.
Also, your second needs some explaining, what does "absolute" mean when applied to non-existence?

Not only that, what you've written here is seemingly unconnected to what you earlier wrote. In particular, I'm referring to the bolded part:

False.

Logically, something can not come from nothing, there is something therefore there has always been something.

**Note i am speaking in absolute terms of existence
-existence cannot come from non-existence

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm nothing if not honest. I'm not out to try proving anything. I am seeking to understand and simplify the beliefs of others who I don't agree with.

The first thing that you may need to understand is that for some questions, atheists may not have any beliefs. I think you are going into this with the assumption that everyone has to have a belief. Atheists are just fine saying, "I don't know" for some questions about the origin of universes and the past.

 

[paradox101]

We have no idea what "absolute non-existence" might or might not be so you cannot really draw any conclusions from the concept.

No I am defining what "absolute non-existence" is.
The absence of everything, no matter, space, time or any other possible thing.

Based on that definition of nothingness then deductive logic can be used to show that since we are here, there has never been nothingness.

I am not drawing any conclusions from reality other than the fact that "something currently exists".

This is really a pointless discussion i guess because it all comes down to how you define your terms.

 

[dysert]

The first thing that you may need to understand is that for some questions, atheists may not have any beliefs. I think you are going into this with the assumption that everyone has to have a belief. Atheists are just fine saying, "I don't know" for some questions about the origin of universes and the past.

I'm trying to go into this with as few assumptions as possible, but it's clear from the responses so far that most atheists are responding with something like "I don't know". Feel free to correct me if I've come to the wrong conclusion.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm trying to go into this with as few assumptions as possible, but it's clear from the responses so far that most atheists are responding with something like "I don't know". Feel free to correct me if I've come to the wrong conclusion.

Is there something wrong with a person stating; I don't know, when enough evidence is not available to make a conclusion?

 

[Elendur]

I'm trying to go into this with as few assumptions as possible, but it's clear from the responses so far that most atheists are responding with something like "I don't know". Feel free to correct me if I've come to the wrong conclusion.

I'd say that it's a correct summation thus far

 

[Nithavela]

Alright: No, most propably not.

 

[Dizredux]

No I am defining what "absolute non-existence" is.
The absence of everything, no matter, space, time or any other possible thing.

Based on that definition of nothingness then deductive logic can be used to show that since we are here, there has never been nothingness.

I am not drawing any conclusions from reality other than the fact that "something currently exists".

This is really a pointless discussion i guess because it all comes down to how you define your terms.

All of logic is based on this.

I don't think it pointless. It was you who was making the statements

Logically, something can not come from nothing, there is something therefore there has always been something.

and

-existence cannot come from non-existence

I don't feel that either of these can be supported so I made some comments for consideration.

If you think it is pointless then simply don't respond but keep in mind that anything said in this forum is subject to challenge and debate.

Dizredux

 

[dysert]

Is there something wrong with a person stating; I don't know, when enough evidence is not available to make a conclusion?

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I don't know". (I do it all the time!)

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm trying to go into this with as few assumptions as possible, but it's clear from the responses so far that most atheists are responding with something like "I don't know". Feel free to correct me if I've come to the wrong conclusion.

That would appear to be the general consensus. "I don't know" is the preferred position of most atheists until evidence leads to a strong conclusion. We may have "gut feelings" about one thing or another, but I think you will find that most of us would be just as happy to be wrong about our gut feelings. For example, my gut feeling is that there is no Bigfoot, but I sure would be excited if someone actually found one.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Next question?

 

[lost999]

A lively debate, indeed.

 

[Euler]

"Other".

We don't know.

 

[dysert]

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

 

[Kunjax]

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

As far as my limited understanding of the Big Bang theory goes, I think that is true. Seeing as that is what the evidence currently points to.

 

[AV1611VET]

True or false: Several billion years ago there existed a formation of mass and/or energy that eventually spawned the material for the known universe.

- True

- False

- Other (please elaborate)

False

 

[Euler]

True