Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Gillipig]

Quick, so we've made 100 pages and nearly 1500 posts. Have we solved everything yet?


--Andy

The religious argument is always a variant of "Can't you see how beautiful and complex the world is? There must be a creator!"
And then we atheists have to try to explain to someone who isn't open to be taught, how apparent design can be created by evolution. It's a never ending circel of frustration and ignorance.

[jonesthecurl]

What are they saying jones? Maybe we should write it down in a book....

Well apparently they've put it all down on some golden tablets. No, you can't see the tablets. only the Great Badger's Chosen Ones can see the tablets.

[Metsfanmax]

But, sometimes it's intellectually enjoyable to find holes in atheist/religious arguments, and this was one of those times.

You never managed to say what the holes were, though.

Sure I did. The fact that you may disagree with me doesn't mean I didn't attempt to show what the flaws in the argument were. This is the original statement I objected to:

So why assume that without the universe there is still causality? If you accept that time and space and everything else came from nothing, that nothing existed and then the universe existed, then causality does not need to extend to the cause of the universe, because the very first natural event, the universe actually beginning to exist, needs no cause. Causality does not exist to act until the universe already exists, and there is no need for any further "prime causer" beyond "it just is"

My argument was that a causal universe cannot arise from an acausal state, so if we have causality now, we've always had it. I don't see how much simpler the argument could get. When I made this argument, crispybits made the argumentative equivalent of stomping his/her feet and saying "stop turning this into a physics experiment." All I was doing was disputing the initial claim, but crispybits made it out to be some sort of unfair argument instead of just a reasoned response to the assumption in the main argument. As of yet, crispybits has not gone to any lengths to defend the original claim (that causality doesn't need to exist prior to the universe) against my claim that if causality exists now, it has always existed.

In addition, I made the clear point that "nothing" existing doesn't mean there were no rules (like causality) or physical laws (like the gravitational force), it just meant there was no matter or energy. When I defeated crispybits' argument (bad by his/her own omission), there was no further response. I think that both of these are gaping holes in the argument. I don't see how one could argue that they have been logically defended.

[Viceroy63]

OK; I'm back. Boy take a little break and the whole conversation digresses all to hell.

That's what many are motivated to oppose. Not the notion that there may or may not be a God, I'm quite happy either way with that for my own definition of God, if he exists then great, if he doesn't that's fine too. But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other. And the only way to attack that sickness of the human mentality is to attack the idea.

I'd like to address this quote first because if by, "But the damage that the idea of God has the ability to drive men to do to themselves and each other..." we are then speaking of savage barbaric acts, then let me point out that mankind in general is a savage barbaric species without the aid of religion. Religion is simply the highest point of Barbarism and savagery that mankind can invent.

Does mankind enslave others in the name of religion? The American Civil War is one of the most barbaric, brutal and savage wars ever fought. "Approximately 625,000 men died in the Civil War, more Americans than in World War I, World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War combined."
(http://www.history.com/news/10-surprisi ... -war-facts)

And lets not mention Adolf Hitler who slaughtered 11 Million Civilians, Non combatants, because he believed that it was the, "Final Solution." Was it all done in the name of Allah or Christ or some other religious belief? History is filled with human inhumanities to other humans and it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is just an excuse to commit all the atrocities that already lie in the hearts of men.

Oh, the evil that men do.

But laying that aside because it really has nothing to do with the existence of God... I just wanted to throw that in there. =)

Science does confirm that the Universe is indeed comprised of three elements and only three elements. Time, Space and Matter. Quantum Physics also falls in there some where just like every noun is either a person place or thing. There is nothing else. When scientist speak of empty space not being empty, This does not prove that an empty universe had already existed and was just waiting to be filled with matter. It merely shows what the knowable universe consist of. Not what brought the universe into existence.

Some scientist even speak of all the known universe, Everything we see being somehow compressed together (perhaps by a big crunch) into a tiny infinitesimal point and that was the cause of a Big Bang. But where does time fit into that equation? Did time go backward as well in that big crunch that caused the big bang? Because if everything is relative and Time continues in as a constant doesn't that mean that an expanding Universe is also a constant? At least that is what I get from that "youtube" that was posted earlier. Yes I watched it. =) So then where is all that energy that pushes this universe apart at an ever increasing rate, Where is all that quantum energy coming from?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg

Empty Space as an explanation for an ever increasing Universe is logical but simply does not explain where all that emptiness is coming from. If energy is never lost only transformed into other forms of energy and or matter then the universe should not be expanding as it is all the time, if all the energy in the universe is a constant and most of it (99.99999% percent of it) in empty space.

Three thousand years ago or so God informed Isaiah...

"Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it;..."
-Isaiah 42:5

Wait a minute, "... the heavens, and stretched them out;"? I don't know about anyone else but gee, that sounds a lot like an expanding universe to me. And what about that bit about the earth spreading fourth? Has not science shown that the earth is larger or more "Spread Forth" now than in the past? That at one time, (perhaps 65 Million Years ago? IDK), that the earth was not so "Spread Forth" as it is today?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U

But how did anyone know this Three Thousand Years Ago? Unless it was revealed Knowledge by The Creator Himself. The knowledge and understanding that scientist are only now figuring out Three Thousand Years after the fact. That's like looking at the cats testacols and saying, "It's a male???"

So if the universe consist of three elements, Space, Time and Matter, and only these three elements, and everything else (Quantum Mechanics) falls into these three co-related and co-existing elements, and if the Bible also states this fact before man ever figured it out, does that not prove the existence of an Intelligent Creator God?

"In the beginning (Time) God created the heaven (Space) and the earth (Matter).
-Genesis 1:1

To me it's, Case Closed!

Warning: This comment may be revised and updated at a future point of Time and Space in order to correct it's spelling, Matter.

[jonesthecurl]

Scientist have confirmed that the Universe is indeed comprised of three elements and only three elements

I must have missed that announcement.

[Viceroy63]

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

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

[jonesthecurl]

I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.

[crispybits]

But, sometimes it's intellectually enjoyable to find holes in atheist/religious arguments, and this was one of those times.

You never managed to say what the holes were, though.

Sure I did. The fact that you may disagree with me doesn't mean I didn't attempt to show what the flaws in the argument were. This is the original statement I objected to:

So why assume that without the universe there is still causality? If you accept that time and space and everything else came from nothing, that nothing existed and then the universe existed, then causality does not need to extend to the cause of the universe, because the very first natural event, the universe actually beginning to exist, needs no cause. Causality does not exist to act until the universe already exists, and there is no need for any further "prime causer" beyond "it just is"

My argument was that a causal universe cannot arise from an acausal state, so if we have causality now, we've always had it. I don't see how much simpler the argument could get. When I made this argument, crispybits made the argumentative equivalent of stomping his/her feet and saying "stop turning this into a physics experiment." All I was doing was disputing the initial claim, but crispybits made it out to be some sort of unfair argument instead of just a reasoned response to the assumption in the main argument. As of yet, crispybits has not gone to any lengths to defend the original claim (that causality doesn't need to exist prior to the universe) against my claim that if causality exists now, it has always existed.

In addition, I made the clear point that "nothing" existing doesn't mean there were no rules (like causality) or physical laws (like the gravitational force), it just meant there was no matter or energy. When I defeated crispybits' argument (bad by his/her own omission), there was no further response. I think that both of these are gaping holes in the argument. I don't see how one could argue that they have been logically defended.

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.

I got pissed because you kept saying "well the multiverse caused it/explains it/etc" ignoring the fact I repeatedly said this was about "God created everything from nothing" and the multiverse counts as part of everything. Then you said we shouldn't add extra assumptions about stuff we can't know, and then assumed that causality was some sort of super-rule, that time exists outside of our known temporal dimensions, and that natural laws can exist without a nature to act upon. All of which are not only assumptions not based on any evidence, but they're also pretty fundamental and game changing assumptions.

It's like me doing a thought experiment on whether a theoretical particle would have an effect on a magnetic field, and you coming along and not only trashing the experiment by throwing a bunch of other hypothesised but unproven effects of magnetism on the particles in and saying "well what about the effects all these could have" but then saying that my conclusion must be false because I can't prove the theoretical particle in the first place and all your unproven hypotheses disprove it but you don't need to offer any proof for yours because you win the argument *smugface* and wandering off. Effective debating style you have there...

Lack of response (when I said I was coming back to something later) does not equal you win by the way. It might well mean I just forgot. if you want an answer to one of your points I'll have another look back tonight after work and see what I didn't give a response to and update things.

[crispybits]

Viceroy just a very quick point (because this thread is making me latef or work again)

I never said religion was the root cause of all evil things men do. But it is one of them, and one of the major ones (up there with nationalism and plain old greed).

Drug addicition is not the only cause of theft and burglary, does that mean we should just say "lets not bother trying to deal with that issue", or does that mean that we should try and deal with that issue as well as the others?

[Viceroy63]

I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.

I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

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

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?
---------------------------------------------------

Crispybits; I was only trying to clarify what I thought was a statement about the problem of religion. The tackling of human ills, I believe would be better served on another thread.

But I would like to address that religion or that belief in a higher power greater than us has always been manipulated by the self serving for their own personal gain. Mostly though because of the power over the masses that religion enables and the money that it brings in. Money and power are about the same thing anyway.

Now what a lot of people do not realize is that Atheism is also a religion. It's higher power greater than us is man's indomitable spirit. And it is manipulated by those who want money and power just the same. Atheism also exerts influence over the masses that helps to bring the people under control. And it is just as deceptive.

For example we can't teach about God in schools because the constitution separates church and state. But this country began as a God fearing nation. Yet we can teach unfounded theories that explain creation without a Creator??? How much more deceptive can you get?

But simple truth is simple truth and the existence of a Creator God is as simple as it gets. To explain creation without a Creator is simply not logical. To deny the evidence in science and history is madness. And to fight against the truth, to fight against God with Theories of Evolution for the Origin of life or the Universe, or even the origin of species, Well that is simply insanity.

[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?

[Timminz]

I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.

I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

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

Let's work with your assumptions for a minute here:

Scientists have not observed anything other than time, space, and matter; therefore no other elements of the universe exist.

Scientists have not observed a creator, therefore no creator exists.




Okay, back to reality now:

Energy.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

I got pissed because you kept saying "well the multiverse caused it/explains it/etc" ignoring the fact I repeatedly said this was about "God created everything from nothing" and the multiverse counts as part of everything.

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.

Then you said we shouldn't add extra assumptions about stuff we can't know, and then assumed that causality was some sort of super-rule, that time exists outside of our known temporal dimensions, and that natural laws can exist without a nature to act upon. All of which are not only assumptions not based on any evidence, but they're also pretty fundamental and game changing assumptions.

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.

It's like me doing a thought experiment on whether a theoretical particle would have an effect on a magnetic field, and you coming along and not only trashing the experiment by throwing a bunch of other hypothesised but unproven effects of magnetism on the particles in and saying "well what about the effects all these could have" but then saying that my conclusion must be false because I can't prove the theoretical particle in the first place and all your unproven hypotheses disprove it but you don't need to offer any proof for yours because you win the argument *smugface* and wandering off. Effective debating style you have there...

Surely it's not. 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.

[Viceroy63]

I need a reference for this "confirmation". Or the names of some scientists.

I need you to answer my questions if you don't mind?

Yup; It happened while you were sleeping on your bed of thorny roses. Next time don't sleep so soundly.

Maybe confirmed is too strong a word. What word would you use? Or maybe I should have said that, "Science does confirm..."

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

Let's work with your assumptions for a minute here:

Scientists have not observed anything other than time, space, and matter; therefore no other elements of the universe exist.

Scientists have not observed a creator, therefore no creator exists.




Okay, back to reality now:

Energy.

First of all Science and Scientist do observe the work of a Creators hand in the Universe but simply choose to ignore what is plainly obvious. Just like some believers choose to ignore the evidence of science. But the Creator's signature is all over the cosmos and can be seen by those who are willing to take a really good look with an unbiased mind.

then there is the fact that God can not be a part of the universe, confined to Time, Space and Matter and at the same time the Creator of Time, Space and Matter. So what is the question? Otherwise that would make for a good argument. But unfortunately God exist outside of Time and Space and when you truly consider it in the person of Jesus is not even matter but spirit.

Also Energy exist in Time, Space and Matter so again, what does that one word answer imply? Light (energy) is also particles or matter. I could easily say that Thoughts are not confined to time/space but then again, the person who has thoughts is confined to time/space. So his thoughts are confined with him. Thoughts also can't be observed, so does that mean that they don't exist?

OK; Back to the real reality!

Windows.

[Metsfanmax]

First of all Science and Scientist do observe the work of a Creators hand in the Universe but simply choose to ignore what is plainly obvious.

We ignore what is not relevant to our work. Whether or not there was a design to the universe has no bearing on our activities; since we cannot access the knowledge of said creator, it is a waste of our time to speculate on what he may or may not have done. As usual, we will continue with an empirical study of nature instead of a metaphysical one. It is meaningless to impugn scientists for not applying metaphysics to a purely empirical discipline; it just misses the point of what we do. Unless and until your god sends down a handbook describing physical laws in a way that we can clearly understand make predictions from, your god is irrelevant to our work.

Just like some believers choose to ignore the evidence of science.

On the other hand, our work is not irrelevant to you. Presumably you take advantage of modern technological conveniences like computers, refrigerators and automobiles. Scientists and engineers made that happen; God didn't send down an instruction manual for how to build an air conditioner. I'll only take seriously someone who "ignores the evidence of science" if they're living off the grid, completely free of modern technology.

[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?