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 The creatio ex nihilio argument may be upheld by some Christians who are particularly out of date on their science, but it's not in the Bible and so therefore not really part of the Christian canon.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

[Metsfanmax]

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

This means that, at some point, there was nothing. Did God exist when there was nothing?

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

We're discussing this passage:

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!

Where does the idea of something being "natural" enter into this quote? Why are we even talking about "nature?"

[crispybits]

"creation", in the context of "creation was made by God", is an obvious reference to the reailty we inhabit, or, to use another name for it, nature. Everything from the universe to the multiverse to the super-verse beyond that if you want to go there and then the hyper-verse beyond that in case you want me to disprove the existence of that too - it's all "nature" and therefore "natural". It's a word I brought into the discussion to stop you dragging us off down the mutliverse tangent, because it is omniversal (so to speak), it covers all the stuff that got made during the alleged "creation".

And "everything was created from nothing" doesn't mean that at any point there was only nothing. It just says that of all the things that make up everything, none of them existed until the point where everything was created. If I fill a fish tank with green goo by waving my hands around over the top of it, and it's proved it's not a magic trick with a physical explanation, then I could be said to have "created that green goo from nothing". But I existed, and the fish tank existed, etc. I only "created the green goo from nothing" in the context of talking about green goo and the lack of other sources of it.

Similarly, if nature is "created from nothing" then the context is of nature and the lack of other sources of nature. Except that without nature there is no time, as it is a natural phenomenon, and therefore no causality, so there is no need for a God figure to create anything, because nature can just appear. It doesn't have to follow any natural laws until after it already exists.

[crispybits]

And I'll remind you of something here because I think I can predict where this goes next...

"But that doesn't prove anything!"

I don't HAVE to prove anything. I'm not trying to establish anything. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in assuming God is necessary for the universe to exist. I was just trying to do it by going step by step instead of just saying it and assuming that some people that don't understand will magically start to understand without any more detailed explanation of why.

God is still possible. He's just not essential or necessary any more.

[Metsfanmax]

"creation", in the context of "creation was made by God", is an obvious reference to the reailty we inhabit, or, to use another name for it, nature. Everything from the universe to the multiverse to the super-verse beyond that if you want to go there and then the hyper-verse beyond that in case you want me to disprove the existence of that too - it's all "nature" and therefore "natural". It's a word I brought into the discussion to stop you dragging us off down the mutliverse tangent, because it is omniversal (so to speak), it covers all the stuff that got made during the alleged "creation".

See, I just don't think this is logically defensible. You're creating this artificial construction where some things that we cannot perceive (e.g. multiverses) still count as being part of "reality," but somehow God is supernatural and not part of reality. What is the relevant quality of these things that makes some things part of "reality" and some things outside of "reality?" I would contend that there is no distinction. This is why I don't think the multiverse discussion is a tangent. But I'm not as confident in this argument as I am in the other things we're saying, so I probably won't continue this method of argumentation.

And "everything was created from nothing" doesn't mean that at any point there was only nothing. It just says that of all the things that make up everything, none of them existed until the point where everything was created. If I fill a fish tank with green goo by waving my hands around over the top of it, and it's proved it's not a magic trick with a physical explanation, then I could be said to have "created that green goo from nothing". But I existed, and the fish tank existed, etc. I only "created the green goo from nothing" in the context of talking about green goo and the lack of other sources of it.

I absolutely agree, and this is what I was saying all along. I think that this is what the creationists are saying too; they're not making a comment about what might exist outside of our universe, so much as saying that the stuff that we are made of, was at some point spontaneously created instead of converting some other material into it. But this point of view, while completely sensible, defeats your original thought experiment. The multiverse thing makes it obvious: one simple scenario that is consistent with what you are saying is that there exists some sort of higher-dimensional plane or higher-level space on which God plays dice, and our universe was created from nothing, inside that higher-level plane. But even if you don't buy that, there's still a flaw because if you are conceding that something existed before (more properly, besides) our universe, then that directly contradicts the original assumption that there was "nothing", which is necessary for your simple deductive reasoning thought experiment to do its damage.

[Metsfanmax]

With that, I will withdraw from the discussion. I honestly don't want to hinder fruitful discussion, and I'm sorry that this got so protracted. I wanted to make it clear that effective communication between people holding wildly different vantage points can only work if you start from a point of common agreement, and that discussions of metaphysics are fraught with difficulties unless you are precise with the terminology you use for your arguments. I hope I have done so. Either way, carry on.

[crispybits]

I'm saying that everything that we, as creatures of nature and limited to observing and experiencing the natural, can ever scientifically observe or experience is part of nature. God by the definition is without (besides) from this structure. Move him inside into the multiverse and you're removing his "omni" qualities. How can a being who exists as a part of a metaphysical plane/dimension be all powerful, all knowing, etc, unless he occupies all of that dimension/plane, and all of any dimensions/planes within the top level one? So you've lost the definition of the Christian God, and the argument becomes about some "God" that is just defined as "creator".

The creation view (and I would hesitate to use creationist for the same reason as I try not to use christian scientist, they have narrower connotations than someone who just believes that God created everything or a christian who is a scientist). And the context of "nothing" is identical between their use of it and mine, so unless you can show how talking about identical concepts somehow creates inconsistencies that argument doesn't really hold water either.

[crispybits]

With that, I will withdraw from the discussion. I honestly don't want to hinder fruitful discussion, and I'm sorry that this got so protracted. I wanted to make it clear that effective communication between people holding wildly different vantage points can only work if you start from a point of common agreement, and that discussions of metaphysics are fraught with difficulties unless you are precise with the terminology you use for your arguments. I hope I have done so. Either way, carry on.

Funny that, seeing as how that was EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO!!!!

It was someone else that decided that one party that they weren't part of needed speaking for without allowing the "effective communication" to even begin to take shape.....

You've definitely showed the difficulty with metaphysics, the way you had to keep shifting your terms to try and find another imaginary supernatural extension of nature which I would have to provide evidence to disprove before my argument could be considered, when you never actually provided any evidence to support any part of any of them in the first place. (You have to talk about the Christian God as Viceroy intended! / God might be an interdimensional alien) (You have to only talk about things we can observe / Multiverses and extra-universal temporal dimensions blah blah) (In the time before causality / causality is just a way we process time, so maybe causality is time)

(Sorry, still narked I just had to spend 6 pages arguing with you to get absolutely nowhere and without even so much as an apology for fucking up the thought experiment I built to engage people which you then wrecked and proceeded to tell me I should try to engage people. Cheers.....)

[jonesthecurl]

BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------

So now you have science without scientists?
Are you sure you didn't just make this up?

You make an appeal to authority. At first it's "scientists". Then it's "science" generally.
again, show me the scientific reference that tells us the universe is made up of three and only three elements. Not whether YOU thing so, not even whether I think so. I want the science that you claim to have encountered that makes this common knowledge.
Anyone else, feel free to help him out and quote us this bit from your favourite research paper or textbook (not creationist website).

[MeDeFe]

Firstly, if we have causality now, then we've always had it for as long as we've had a temporal structure to have it in. As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the mechanic of causality is meaningless without a "before" and an "after". We need time to make causality work. We didn't have time before the universe/multiverse/etc was created from nothing, therefore neither could we have had causality. So I have defended the argument, unless you want to explain how causality can exist outside of any known temporal structure.

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.

Now, I'm no expert, but I think you're at odds with the majority of physicists there.

[Neoteny]

BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think?
---------------------------------------------------

So now you have science without scientists?
Are you sure you didn't just make this up?

You make an appeal to authority. At first it's "scientists". Then it's "science" generally.
again, show me the scientific reference that tells us the universe is made up of three and only three elements. Not whether YOU thing so, not even whether I think so. I want the science that you claim to have encountered that makes this common knowledge.
Anyone else, feel free to help him out and quote us this bit from your favourite research paper or textbook (not creationist website).

Science says at least 112 elements in the universe.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02769517