I'm not asking any atheist to affirm or deny anything. I just need to understand something using logic
1. Let us agree that science is our best method for establishing reality
2. Let us agree that if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe
Therefore, how do you atheists know that sciences such as logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond the universe?
@Calilasseia @Nyarlathotep @Cognostic @TheBlindWatchmaker
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Logic is not science.
---------------------------------------
I've never suggested that.
---------------------------------------
That seems far from obvious.
@Reedimption: Science does not establish reality. Reality is already established. Science builds models in an effort to describe or explain reality. The laws of science are descriptive and not prescriptive. As our information changes, so does science. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Science is. It is a method and not a thing.
2. RE: 2. Let us agree that if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe.
As we know, physics breaks down at Planck Time. Time, matter, energy, neurons, protons, electrons, elements, bonding of elements and everything we know of this universe occurred in the Big Bang. To talk of anything before the Big Bang is complete conjecture.
You want to put a first cause there. Think about it. Without time, when would the thought to create a universe begin or end. Without previous experience, words, thoughts, how would this cause get to a universe and not a gummy bear?
Where would the idea, "Universe" come from?
RE: Therefore, how do you atheists know that sciences such as logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond the universe?
Why would anyone assume these items you mention apply beyond the Big Bang. The only person asserting anything beyond the Big Bang is you. You have a complete misunderstanding of what these things are.
Logic is an a methodology, which like the scientific method, can lead us to claims that are logically sound, 'justified true belief." Thermodynamics is an observation. A measurable, empirically justified, observation of the properties of closed systems. To my knowledge, no one has ever observed anything beyond our Universe.
That is pure unevidenced speculation, therefore I do not agree, and must withhold belief until sufficient objective evidence can be demonstrated for both claims, that a) There is an uncaused cause, and b) This existed before the universe, which #might have always existed in some other form(s) for all we know.
Logic and science are not the same thing? So this is either sloppy language or more dishonesty.
Your straw man question has nothing to do with atheism, and since I have never claimed to know any of the assertions you dishonestly assign generically to atheists, it is as pointless as it is dishonest. Go to a scientific forum, and put your questions to them, if you dare.
Just because you can't fathom the concept of an extant, without adding specious appeal to ignorance fallacies, involving unevidenced deities from bronze age superstitions, using unexplained magic, doesn't mean atheists do this. I'm content to disbelief in any deity or deities, until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for them.
Can you do this? We already know the answer of course.
What is "beyond the universe"?
@David K. Re: "What is "beyond the universe"?"
SO glad you asked!... *big grin*... *briskly rubbing hands together*... I just recently purchased an ACME Genuinely Authentic Junior Astronomer Hubble Telescope Galaxy Gazing Starter Kit (Launching platform and control center sold separately), and I think I have found the answer! Yep, I pointed that marvelous piece of advanced optical technology straight at a yet undiscovered section of the universal event horizon near the Tachyon Cluster two parsecs south of the Kessel Run sector. And as luck would have it, there just happened to be a massive Black Hole that was causing a gravitational rip in the wall of a nearby Wormhole that was connected to an area outside our universe. Awesome, right?!?.. *clapping excitedly*...
So I pushed the Super-duper Zoom Control Lever to the maximum "Off The Charts Zoom-In" setting, and then quickly hit "Record" on my VCR that had I rigged into the control panel monitor. This is what I captured...
https://youtu.be/CFKIu6uY5vA
Looks like we now know how and why the universe is constantly expanding. Mystery solved! Yay! (Oh, by the way, I added the background music to the recording. It was really boring watching it without sound.)
@Tin: What great clarity. Dude, NASA is going to be so impressed. Your pics are as good as those taken by the rover. NICE!
@David Killens: RE: "WHAT" is "beyond the universe"? YES!
@reedemption
First you say "Let us agree that science is our best method for establishing reality". Just like the metallic chaff scattered by warplanes to confuse radar, you're trying to lay down a cloud of apparent reasonableness.
You then try to fire a theistic missile past our bullshit-seeking defenses with "if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe".
"Before the universe" is an illogical concept stemming from our human inability to imagine anything outside of the space-time continuum that we inhabit. Our understanding of causality is similarly limited. Like you, I can't imagine infinity or something happening without a cause. But you need to remember that reality isn't confined by our limitations.
God is just a shoehorn used to force reality into small minds. Get a bigger shoe.
@Algebe
The theistic missile, while supa-ultra-megasonic, was blown out of the sky by a well placed risen eyebrow. I swear, those Man-Child playing up with nukes should throw them at me, i would surely make the world a better place without those thousand of megatons of fiery star fire...
@Algebe: The only problem with your post is that I did not think of it first! Great analogy.
@ reedemption
How do you know?
I'm not asking any atheist to affirm or deny anything. I just need to understand something using logic
1. Let us agree that science is our best method for establishing reality
2. Let us agree that if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe
Therefore, how do you atheists know that sciences such as logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond the universe?
________________________________________________________________________________________________
One important thing for anyone to admit is: "I don't know". I'm not a physicist, so I don't know the answer to your question(s).
Here's another question: "Does that mean that there MUST be a god ?"
And the answer: "I don't know".
In view of that last answer, I cannot commit to the belief that there is a god of any kind, because I don't know. OK?
However, there is no good reason to think that there is a god.
Finally, I do not agree with proposition #2 above.There may not have been any first uncaused cause, and even if there were, it may not have been from outside of a natural explanation.
Philosophical chit chat is not the way to get the answers to these questions, rather we need to allow the physicists and other scientists to figure it out, if they can. All existential philosophy does is derive "explanations" which are internally consistent.That does not make them true however.
How do you know? How do I know? Well . . . I DON'T know.
@reedemption: "2. Let us agree that if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe
Therefore, how do you atheists know that sciences such as logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond the universe?"
First, explain "before" and "beyond" the universe. (Deja vu! I think you are repeating yourself.)
@reedemption: You are getting a lot of honest "I don't know replies." I don't want to speak on behalf of everyone else in the forum; however, I think you can probably add to each and every "I don't know" response, "and there is no good reason to assume so."
Not only is the answer "I don't know" but there really is no good reason to make any assumption about anything outside the universe without KNOWING SOMETHING about the outside or even if there is an outside first.
You do not get to assert a first cause into existence. It's just that simple. Not only do we not know, but, we all know that you don't know either. Wake up and smell the universe you are living in. You have no good reason to assert anything beyond what is known.
@reedemption
"1. Let us agree that science is our best method for establishing reality
2. Let us agree that if there was an uncaused first cause, it would have existed before the universe"
Let us not agree. If you feel so strongly about your proposition, it will take more than just pleading. How about providing a strong argument instead?
"Therefore, how do you atheists know that sciences such as logic, entropy and thermodynamics apply beyond the universe?"
Most atheists do not pretend to know what is beyond our known universe. Within the scientific community there are many propositions, but none is convincing.
How many times must you be told that as we near the instant of the big bang, the math breaks down?
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
That is precisely the point, how do we know? how do you know?
We can't possibly know, could even be a potentially valid argument.
However, there are certain things we can empirically deduce using science and the data at hand.
- There is no evidence of the super-natural.
- There is not a single shred of empirical data to demonstrate anything other than naturally occurring chains of causality.
- Laws of nature and physics have never been suspended, especially in the favour for any being(s).
- Causality balances out at the fundamental level, therefore you do not require a first cause.
(See my previous posts regarding photons without hidden variables, that act with randomness and no cause)
- BGV theorem only supports classical notions of physics, does not work with quantum mechanics.
- Vilekin actually believes the universe is most likely, eternal.
- Still no burden of proof has been met by theism.
- Everything works fine without invoking a deity.
Sorry, but I had to tack on a few of my own thoughts on the first cause argument.
I probably have a lot more to say, but it's very early and I'm incredibly tired.
That is a great point. Even if we accept the dubious postulates: it isn't so clear that the conclusion follows.
Indeed.
I also find the OP's utterings of
to be nauseating.
This strikes me as being similar to trying to describe 'nothing', in a cosmological/physical way.
"Beyond the universe" sounds not unlike somewhere over the rainbow to me.
More woo woo...
RE: Woooooooooooo Wooooooooooooo chugga chugga chugga chugga
Woooooooo Wooooooooo "Next Stop.... End of the Universe!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw Gee, what should I do now???
How did you manage to get reservations at Milliways?
@Hey! I had a thought! We are all just writing things too complex to understand. We gotta loosen up. We all gotta stop writing like we are talking to people with university degrees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
OR THIS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_J5rBxeTIk
OR THIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfyS-S-IJs
Okay, sorry, the last one does not apply...... well..... unless it is short sighted people. But it's funny as hell!
I know some extremely intelligent people who have university degrees behind them. However I've also met some who were without a doubt some of the dumbest people alive.
What an utter waste of time and resources on a higher education for some of them, breaks your heart, it really does....
@Sheldon: I was program director for a level 13 facility, one level below 'lock down." We housed 36 boys, 8 to 18 years old. The staff ratio was 3 to 6 during the day and 1 to 6 with on call therapists at night. I had hired PhDs that could not problem solve their way out of a paper sack even if they were holding a glass of water in one hand and a knife in the other.
Okay, admittedly, the kids tested boundaries and they threatened and of course they might hit you. But someone had to act like an adult. HA HA HA HA HA HA.... Not the PhDs/
My impression is that they are good at reading books and studying for exams but when it comes to dealing with disruptive behavior right in front of them, they tend to be woefully inadequate. (I'm talking of clinical psychologists.)
But it does not end there. I used to go to the MDs, psychiatrists. and just tell them what meds I wanted the kids to be on. In 12 years at the job, I had 1 psychiatrist that was worth a shit. He questioned me, talked to the kid, sometimes agreed, sometimes disagreed, and occasionally offered something different. 1 Psychiatrist that actually knew what he was doing and really wanted what was best for the kids and really wanted to work with me and the staff. ONE IN 12 YEARS.
My impression is that these people have spent their lives in school. They have not traveled the world. They have not lived on the streets. They did not come from poor families. They did not have to work and go to school at the same time. They just do not have a realistic view of life. People who start from the bottom and manage to clime to some degree of success, who have life experiences, are generally more effective at their jobs, and less entitled, than PhDs.
I am specifically referring to my profession, counseling services and education. At the university we get people who think they are experts in their field. They talk down at the students and even their peers. MY UNIVERSITY IS NOT AN IVY LEAGUE UNIVERSITY. These people are delusional. If they were that good they would be teaching at a top university. They are here with everyone else. No better no worse. But when those initials go to their heads, I have no idea how to jerk them back into what is real. (NOT ALL - I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS) But enough to make it an obvious problem/
@Cognostic
My wife deals with children with behavior problems in a public school. She is formally assigned four to six children, but basically she manages the entire school, and counsels not only the children, but staff. Trust me, most of these basic level educators live in a bubble, never being exposed to the true harsh realities of life.
I come from the construction world,where you are expected to work your ass off all day, and if you phone in sick, you will be informed that you need to come by to pick up your separation check.
I just shake my head sometimes, often pondering why mankind has suspended Darwinism and allowed such incompetents to survive and prosper.
@Cognostic
While I have watched some documentaries about some of the issues you mention in your line of work Cog, it is good to hear it from the ground, unedited. In a word, the situation sucks. You can measure a nation/group of people by how they treat those most in need, and while there is far worse than the US, for how incredibly wealthy the US is, it should be far better.
Ivy League schools are rich kids school. And also an exclusive club that help maintain family legacies of being wealthy. Sure they invite the extremely hard working, studious, outside of their exclusive group, that are the best and the brightest -- hello scholarships + good PR! (These lucky "few" people will be useful to them to work hard to make them even more money, and they will reward them with a much higher lifestyle, but their pay/wealth will still be peanuts to rich boys club.)
Plus they are all too happy to accept large cash bribes to get into this boys club if someone is so convinced (and studious enough to be accepted) that going 6 figures into debt or spending the family inheritance on it, is worth it for those that try to get in without a scholarship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMSV4OteqBE
@David Killens: Guitar Nurd? My baby is a $4,000 Taylor Baritone Acoustic Electric. steel string. Mahogany back and sides, and neck. Sitka spruce top. Warm and smooth. It's a special order... so ... one of a kind from Martin Music. I don't play electric though I do have one and mess with it now and again.
A bit Cognostic, although I never played long enough to be considered decent. But I definitely appreciate these works of art and sheer tonal beauty.
But my Spinal Tap "11" just reminds me of cognitive dissonance we see in here. Something gets patiently explained a hundred times, then the response is "so atheism isn't a religion"? Or something equally obtuse.
@ Cog
*drool*...beats my epiphone 6 string...I was an Ibanez then Washburn sponsored artist over my career so had some superb instruments I could call my own.As a bass player, in my day the luthiers were just coming up with the superb designs of today.
I kept my Ibanez with a custom neck for my hand size until comparatively recently, the last survivor of the roomful I once had.
*sigh* memories!
@David Killens: I'm not great either but love to sing and I was just in a place where I could afford a nice guitar. It's eye candy. But then so many guitars are.
Pages