Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Viceroy63]

Believe me when I say that He is your God also and in the Final Judgment;

You will come to know this!

[Neoteny]

barf

[Metsfanmax]

Believe me when I say that He is your God also and in the Final Judgment;

You will come to know this!

Believe me when I say that your refrigerator will continue to keep your food cold; it will do so whether you understand it or not.

You are welcome.

[crispybits]

The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.

So you want me to prove that time didn't exist? The claim I was presented with (more on that point later) is that there is nothing and then God created everything. I merely took it at face value.

I actually personally believe time applies to the multiverse as well, and no further out than that because I've never seen any evidence, real or theoretical, that anything could exist outside of the multiverse. But my beliefs are not relevant as I was responding to something quite clear.

The problem with this line of attack is that you seem to be interpreting creationist claims how you want so that you can then shoot them down. Where is it in the Bible that God created "everything from nothing?" The first line of Genesis is

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

How could you possibly insist that there was "nothing" before this creation event? What if the creation is really just God seeding our universe in some sort of multiverse structure? The creatio ex nihilio argument may be upheld by some Christians who are particularly out of date on their science, but it's not in the Bible and so therefore not really part of the Christian canon. Attacking it and then claiming that you have defeated the Christian argument for God is not correct.

Look at this:

If we put things into context? Then lets leave Alexander out of this. Why go off into another tangent.

The point is that creation was made out of Nothing because there was nothing before creation. That Adam was made from the dust and then Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs is besides the point.

How did they know that the creation was basically made from nothing? That is the point!

It seems to me that this had to have been revealed knowledge.

This is what I was responding to. If you actually read it you would have known that. You took my assertions out of context and then attacked me for claiming to destroy all christian metaphysics when in reality I was only responding to one poster and taking their assumptions and just running with them. The fact that their assumption was flawed to begin with is not a fault of my argument going forward, because I specifically said that I was going to suspend disbelief and run with their assertion and see where it went. Like I said it's easier to make someone come round to a differing point of view if you lead them along a path instead of just shouting at them from very far away.

I never made any of those assumptions. I simply argued that causality is qualitatively different from physical laws of nature, and so therefore to group it with those physical laws and say that they're all the same and so none of them could have existed is a fallacy. Regarding time, I also said that it could exist outside of our own universe, and there's nothing that can dispute that. Regarding natural laws, I didn't even say anything like that.

Firstly, you have never said HOW causality is qualitatively different. Why is something that is a temporal feature above and external to the laws of space and time?

Secondly, look at these:

Like I said, I consider causality to be a much different construction than matter and energy. When people generally say "before the universe, there was nothing" I think they're generally talking about matter that we're used to interact with. They can't mean nothing because there's still God, and that doesn't mean the rules (e.g. the laws of physics) didn't apply before the universe; it just meant that there was nothing existing to obey the rules.

I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.

But you didn't argue that natural laws could exist without a nature to regulate no?

What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.

That looks suspiciously like you're saying that there is a time beyond our universe/multiverse. Any evidence for that?

Oh but then.....

Humans should rightfully be humbled by both the scale of the universe relative to us, and what we have learned in spite of that. It should not fill us with the arrogance to suggest that we can know more than that about which we observe.

We shouldn't say anything about stuff we can't observe.

Those are all direct quotes from your posts. I haven't claimed that anything exists beyond the point I can show. Causality doesn't exist beyond the multiverse, time, space, natural law, etc etc etc don't exist beyond our multiverse. You have consistently put forward the fanciful "what if" statements to try and shoot down simple logic.

The entire basis of your argument has been this consistent claim that nothing existed prior to the universe, but there is absolutely no basis for this claim, either on the religious side or the atheist side. You're the only one actually defending an unprovable claim. I'm just throwing some speculations your way to show you why the claim is indefensible.

The entire basis for the thought experiment has been a claim, made by a christian, that there was nothing before God made everything. I do not subscribe to that claim, I do not validate that claim, and I do not try to defend that claim. I advance the experiment in order to try and lead someone (probably not the claimant themseles but maybe someone reading) to realise why that premise is flawed. You then wander in and piss all over the experiment by ignoring the process and jumping straight to the answer we both agree on. Like walking into a cinema while the coming attractions trailers are still on and shouting out what happens at the end of the film. Thanks for that.....

In the meantime you accuse me of logical inconsistency while your arguments make you the one saying we shouldn't argue about hypothetical unknowables but if we did your unknowables beat my unknowables because.... well just because.

And then you wonder why I'm pissed?

(Edits to sort out confused quote brackets)

[Metsfanmax]

So you want me to prove that time didn't exist? The claim I was presented with (more on that point later) is that there is nothing and then God created everything. I merely took it at face value.

Yes, but your interpretation of what was meant by "nothing" was your own, and you selected it so as to win an argument rather than considering all possible meanings. If we interpret "nothing" simply as the absence of material things, but not necessarily the absence of any rules, or the absence of space and time, then the whole basis for your argument falls apart. You arbitrarily decided that "nothing" meant that there was no framework for matter and energy to exist in, no time and space. But these are constructions to begin with. That's a choice; it doesn't follow from the definition of the word. That's because time, space, physical laws, etc. are all immaterial. If you can prove your argument without making the assumption that no rules or physical laws existed prior to the creation of the universe, then I will concede that your argument is a valid response to this creationist argument.

Firstly, you have never said HOW causality is qualitatively different. Why is something that is a temporal feature above and external to the laws of space and time?

I tried to explain it, but I don't think I did very well, because it's hard to describe in words. The main idea, though, is that space and time are simply a backdrop on which events occur (in general relativity, we see that the backdrop is affected by matter and energy, but nonetheless, it is still an arbitrary construction that we use to explain how things work -- it doesn't say anything real about material objects). Physical force laws, and conservation laws, describe how dynamical processes play out on top of that backdrop. Causality is qualitatively different because it is not a rule that tells matter and energy how to move on the backdrop of space and time; you could have a perfectly consistent set of physical force laws without causality. Causality gives a particular ordering to events, and that ordering is more in line with the nature of how we think about time itself. One way to think about it is that causality is what we mean by time: time has no fundamental meaning in physics, as none of the physical forces make reference to time. Time is a way of constructing a macroscopic order for events. If the universe were not causal, there would be no need for the construction of time, because it would not be possible to assign a logical sequence of events in a particular order, which is a requisite for an understanding of time.

Secondly, look at these:

Like I said, I consider causality to be a much different construction than matter and energy. When people generally say "before the universe, there was nothing" I think they're generally talking about matter that we're used to interact with. They can't mean nothing because there's still God, and that doesn't mean the rules (e.g. the laws of physics) didn't apply before the universe; it just meant that there was nothing existing to obey the rules.

I explicitly pointed out that the 'nothing' in question was the absence of matter and energy and all other "real" quantities. I don't see how the rules of the universe qualify as "something" existing.

But you didn't argue that natural laws could exist without a nature to regulate no?

I argued that they logically could, absent any evidence to the contrary. It's a purely speculative claim, as are all these other metaphysical arguments. It is not meant to say anything deep about the nature of the universe; just designed to show that you need to justify your assumptions about the way nature works. You oughtn't make grand claims about whether physical laws can be made sense of, absent space and time, if we can't know one way or the other.

What do you mean by "real time?" Do you mean the time which humans perceive? Why do you think that is real, or unique, or special? Perhaps there is some "real" meta-universal time, and what we see in our universe is just a subset of that, or maybe our universe's time ticks at the same rate as the real meta-universe, and our time = zero just happened to start at some finite non-zero time in the meta-universe.

That looks suspiciously like you're saying that there is a time beyond our universe/multiverse. Any evidence for that?

When one uses the word "perhaps," one is usually suggesting a possibility and not a claim of truth.

In the meantime you accuse me of logical inconsistency while your arguments make you the one saying we shouldn't argue about hypothetical unknowables but if we did your unknowables beat my unknowables because.... well just because.

And then you wonder why I'm pissed?

I don't care whether you are "pissed." If you can't have a logical debate without getting angry, then I recommend not engaging in any.

[crispybits]

Interpretation of "nothing"? Is that really the best you can do? Nothing is a pretty much non-interperative concept. It means nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no greater structure in which they can all exist, no multiverse, no anything. Nothing. To argue a different interpretation of nothing means you are arguing that nothing is something. Is this really what you mean?

And causality IS time. So causality cannot exist outside of a temporal framework. But then you talk about a "time before causality" at points to disprove my assertion that without the universe (i.e without temporal dimensions) there is no causality. Which is it? Make your mind up?

And then onto the "I argue that absent of evidence this could be true". You're doing the same thing you accuse everyone else of, inventing stuff then saying "there's no evidence against so it must be valid." I never claimed anything could be made sense of without nature to exist in, in fact my argument was exactly that God isn't a necessity BECAUSE you don't NEED anything to make sense of what happened "before nature". You can't apply causality or any of the other rules to what happened "before nature" because it just isn't there. You can only apply all this stuff once nature already exists, and therefore God isn't needed any more anyway.

When you use a perhaps that makes a claim to the existence of something to shoot down an argument that doesn't rely on claiming the existence of anything that we haven't already observed, then you should provide evidence of your perhaps. Or perhaps you are wrong becuase you are a secret alien infiltrator sent here to restrict human advancement so that when the invasion ships arrive in a few hundred years time they'll have an easier time of it. Of course I have no evidence for this perhaps, but I'll claim it wins me the argument anyway. Right?

I'm not pissed because of the logic. I've said repeatedly that in general I agree with your logic. I'm pissed because you don't seem to understand what the entire purpose or nature of my post that you latched your misconceptions onto was, and now you're claiming I'm trying to do something I'm not trying to do, I'm making claims I haven't made and oh by the way, that you win the argument becuase, well, you say so. Meanwhile you ignore where I point out the actual starting point and purpose of this. OK then....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

[crispybits]

Just as an extra:

If you can prove your argument without making the assumption that no rules or physical laws existed prior to the creation of the universe, then I will concede that your argument is a valid response to this creationist argument.

Why should we assume that anything did exist prior to the creation of the universe? If we're going to do that then why not just assume God exists and he made it all?

I'm not assuming anything exists before it can be shown to exist. You constantly claiming they could exist and telling me to prove that they don't is backwards. If they could exist then show me how they could exist. Show me how a natural law can exist without a nature. Show me the possibility.

If you cannot provide evidence for a positive claim, even a hypothetical possibility claim, then you cannot claim that your debating adversary has to provide evidence of the negative or you win. You have your proof standard all wrong...

[Metsfanmax]

Interpretation of "nothing"? Is that really the best you can do? Nothing is a pretty much non-interperative concept. It means nothing. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no greater structure in which they can all exist, no multiverse, no anything. Nothing. To argue a different interpretation of nothing means you are arguing that nothing is something. Is this really what you mean?

It is the best I can do, because what one means by "nothing" is actually the central point in this discussion. Did you ask Viceroy if that's what he meant by "nothing" before you attacked his argument?

If it was really so simple to construct what one means by "nothing", do you think that there would be a Wikipedia article on the subject?

[crispybits]

So as per your previous assertion, do I assume all the things you didn't directly reply to you admit you can't get around?

Nothing depends on context for sure. "There's nothing in the fridge" in the context of people talking about dinner means no substantial food. There might be some mustard or a can of beer or something, but it would be "there is nothing we can make a meal from in the fridge". "There's nothing in my pockets" wouldn't count pocket fluff or a tissue whatever if a policeman asked if you had anything in your pockets, as in "nothing illegal or important to you Mr Policeman"

"Nothing existed before God made nature" in the context of metaphysics is also very clear. Nothing natural existed. no natural phenomena, no natural structure, no natural laws. Nothing natural.

Did you ask Viceroy if that's what he meant by "nothing" before you attacked his argument?

Did you before you made a bunch of huge fanciful assumptions to attempt to defend it?

[Timminz]

What else is there beside the three, Time, Space and Matter in our very real and physical Universe that we can see and determine?

Energy.

Energy exist in Time, Space and Matter so again, what does that one word answer imply?

It was obviously (even to you, since you attempted a reply) an answer to your question.

Anyway, your attempt at a reply is not consistent with your own statements. Matter also exists in time and space, but you're not choosing to discount its existence.

Make up your mind. Are space and time the only elements of our universe, or do matter, and energy, and maybe even more stuff also exist?

[Metsfanmax]

So as per your previous assertion, do I assume all the things you didn't directly reply to you admit you can't get around?

I got bored of rehashing this debate repeatedly, so kept only the main point. Assume what you like. I only need to find one flaw with your thought experiment to defeat it, so I kept the strongest one.

Nothing depends on context for sure. "There's nothing in the fridge" in the context of people talking about dinner means no substantial food. There might be some mustard or a can of beer or something, but it would be "there is nothing we can make a meal from in the fridge". "There's nothing in my pockets" wouldn't count pocket fluff or a tissue whatever if a policeman asked if you had anything in your pockets, as in "nothing illegal or important to you Mr Policeman"

"Nothing existed before God made nature" in the context of metaphysics is also very clear. Nothing natural existed. no natural phenomena, no natural structure, no natural laws. Nothing natural.

It is clear to you, but evidently not clear to me. I see it having multiple possible meanings, (see the Wikipedia article; it's actually talking about how "nothing" is defined in the realm of metaphysics) and I see your argument here as a way to semantically attempt to win the argument without addressing the main point. You are welcome to twist the words of your opponents in a debate whichever way you want, but that doesn't mean you've actually responded to what they're saying, and so in that sense you're making it more difficult to have a meaningful conversation. If you want to make progress and connect with people, as you say, then you would be better served by agreeing to meet on some common ground on what the terminology of your discussion is. Hammering a point home when you two don't even agree on what the words mean, that you are talking about, is a recipe for failure if the goal is effective communication.

Now, I don't claim to know what Viceroy was thinking. All I know is that just by a pure reading of his statement, considering all the possible meanings that one could use to hammer the point home, I don't think your argument holds up. I recommend that you two first define what you mean by what "existed" (if anything) prior to the "creation" of the universe.

[Metsfanmax]

Make up your mind. Are space and time the only elements of our universe, or do matter, and energy, and maybe even more stuff also exist?

There are also invisible badgers.

[crispybits]

Tell me what all those meanings are, or at least 2-3 of them. I don't see that article saying anything about metaphysics. I see it says physics says that nothing cannot even be described as empty space, because space is something.

And you know what? I had tried to connect with Viceroy by engaging him in a discussion about this, but someone came along and pissed all over the thought experiment I set up to engage him with without themselves asking him what he meant before they wasted both our time with their insistences that I provide proof about the non-existence of any and every extra-universal thing they can imagine. Go figure.

[Metsfanmax]

Tell me what all those meanings are, or at least 2-3 of them. I don't see that article saying anything about metaphysics. I see it says physics says that nothing cannot even be described as empty space, because space is something.

Here is an easy example to prove why your argument is short-sighted: if nothing existed before the universe, how could God have? Obviously creationists don't mean that God didn't exist when he created the universe.

[crispybits]

The argument isn't "nothing existed". Again you twist it. The argument is "everything was created from nothing"

And besides which I said the context was clear - nothing natural existed before nature - God is a supernatural entity.

Try again