Presuppositional Apolgetic

[shunyadragon]

Btw, I don't come in here thinking I need to use the scientific method or form a neutral argument. I come here assuming you atheist should know what you believe already. I don't have to explain it.

The Presuppositional Christianity like Mr. Black.

[AkByR64]

The classical axioms of logic [Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction] are all propositions about how reality operates. Therefore they are summaries of natural laws or, another way to look at it is that they come out of the consistent regularity of light and matter in motion.

It is interesting to speculate further about why matter is so consistent but at the moment there are no definite answers that I am aware of. [Insert God of gaps here.]

The problem with that is that if the laws of logic were contingent upon the universe, then I want you to think about this proposition "Before the universe existed, it was true that the universe did not exist".

So, the laws of logic would still apply outside the universe. Therefore the laws of logic couldn't be propositions about how reality operates. See how easy that is?

Furthermore, we've never find the laws of logic under a rock or water. So that in of itself defeats physical materialism. Since these laws are not physical, by definition they transcend the physical world because the physical world depends upon them to exist.

[shunyadragon]

The problem with that is that if the laws of logic were contingent upon the universe, then I want you to think about this proposition "Before the universe existed, it was true that the universe did not exist".

We do not know that the universe began to exist or not.

So, the laws of logic would still apply outside the universe.

No.

Therefore the laws of logic couldn't be propositions about how reality operates. See how easy that is?

No your reasoning is flawed assuming that our physical existence including all possible universes began to exist. This is unknown. Not really easy at all.

Furthermore, we've never find the laws of logic under a rock or water. So that in of itself defeats physical materialism.

False, the Laws of Logic are based on the Laws of Nature. Like Logic, the behavior of the rock and water are based on the Laws of Nature.

Since these laws are not physical, by definition they transcend the physical world because the physical world depends upon them to exist.

The highlighted is the only maybe correct statement in the above. Yes, the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Logic are not physical things, and the Laws of Nature definitely transcend the physical world.

[firstfloor]

Before the Universe existed, the words "before" "the" "Universe" and "existed" have no meaning at all. Logic does not pre-date existence. There is no true or false in that domain

[37818]

Before the Universe existed, the words "before" "the" "Universe" and "existed" have no meaning at all. Logic does not pre-date existence. There is no true or false in that domain

You are using universe to mean existence. Indeed that the universe is understood to include existence in that the universe like existence possesses everything. A thing in the universe is not the universe. A thing in existence is not existence proper. I make a distinction between a thing which exists and the existence in which the the thing exists. A thing has existence in space which is in the universe which is in existence.

[firstfloor]

You are using universe to mean existence. Indeed that the universe is understood to include existence in that the universe like existence possesses everything. A thing in the universe is not the universe. A thing in existence is not existence proper. I make a distinction between a thing which exists and the existence in which the the thing exists. A thing has existence in space which is in the universe which is in existence.

… which is in super-existence, which is in super, super existence and so on like Russian dolls? I suspect that you would prefer to stop at existence being the home of the gods, and having run out of puff, stop thinking and start praying.

[shunyadragon]

You are using universe to mean existence.

Yes, The best definition here is the greater cosmos that contains all possible universes.

A thing in the universe is not the universe.

True, planets, stars, and galaxies is not the universe.

A thing in existence is not existence proper. I make a distinction between a thing which exists and the existence in which the the thing exists. A thing has existence in space which is in the universe which is in existence.

This distinction is arbitrary, a basis of your assumption of belief that there is world of existence that is greater than our physical existence. Both of us believe in God that is the source of everything, but unfortunately your argument is too circular. The known universe and all possible universes possibly constitutes all of existence.

[AkByR64]

Before the Universe existed, the words "before" "the" "Universe" and "existed" have no meaning at all. Logic does not pre-date existence. There is no true or false in that domain

Yes it does have "meaning" because the word existence means all possibilities. You probably aren't aware of this but scientists even go as far as theorize M-theory which is outside of this universe. If there's no meaning before the universe then how do you explain quantum physics to be able to think about the quantum state? This is precisely the mechanics about the nature of the universe PRIOR to the BIG BANG.

[AkByR64]

We do not know that the universe began to exist or not.

The vast majority of scientists seem to agree the universe began 13.5 billion years. If you deny this then you are going against mainstream science. I'm not claiming that I know this. Science isn't in the business of knowing, only that it is the best available data.

But let's assume you are right. We don't know. If we don't know, then how can they claim to know so much about the quantum sea of energy from which the singularity POTENTuality came from?

How can they KNOW since you said we cannot KNOW? Are you saying they are wrong? Is that what you mean? lol.

No your reasoning is flawed assuming that our physical existence including all possible universes began to exist. This is unknown. Not really easy at all.

Again science doesn't deal with knowledge. Science deals with theory. And there are no theory of any kind that don't propose things similar to the classic definition of God as an explanation. Every theory propose things that lie outside of our own laws and universe. And since it transcend this universe (space time energy matter)..how is that any different than say God did it?... Or that it began to exist? Every theory had a beginning all the way down to subatomic particles... even if it didn't begin in this universe, it still began in other universe.

[firstfloor]

Yes it does have "meaning" because the word existence means all possibilities. You probably aren't aware of this but scientists even go as far as theorize M-theory which is outside of this universe. If there's no meaning before the universe then how do you explain quantum physics to be able to think about the quantum state? This is precisely the mechanics about the nature of the universe PRIOR to the BIG BANG.

Quantum mechanics and M-theory are theories about nature. They have nothing at all to do with anything outside or before the universe; assuming that ‘outside or before the universe’ has any meaning at all.

[AkByR64]

Yes, The best definition here is the greater cosmos that contains all possible universes.

True, planets, stars, and galaxies is not the universe.

This distinction is arbitrary, a basis of your assumption of belief that there is world of existence that is greater than our physical existence. Both of us believe in God that is the source of everything, but unfortunately your argument is too circular. The known universe and all possible universes possibly constitutes all of existence.

The big bang theory postulates the origin of space and time. So whatever caused it had to be outside of it's own dimension. That is why a supernatural cause is needed to explain it because it is the beginning of the universe out of nothing. Logical deduction.

Therefore, logically speaking, knowing that the universe had a transcendent cause by one not made here in this universe does not mean it doesn't exist.

[shunyadragon]

The vast majority of scientists seem to agree the universe began 13.5 billion years. If you deny this then you are going against mainstream science. I'm not claiming that I know this. Science isn't in the business of knowing, only that it is the best available data.

The highlighted is problematic. First, science is not a popularity poll. Second, it is generally accepted that the beginning of our universe, IF there was ever actually a beginning, IS NOT consider the beginning of our physical existence which contains our universe. I do not think you are aware of what actual data the science of physics and cosmology is based on.

Again scientists do not 'know' that our universe is the beginning of anything other then the universe as we experience.

But let's assume you are right. We don't know. If we don't know, then how can they claim to know so much about the quantum sea of energy from which the singularity POTENTuality came from?

As noted above scientist are not in the 'know' business, therefore do not claim so. The science of cosmology and physics is firmly based in falsifiable objective methodology.

How can they KNOW since you said we cannot KNOW? Are you saying they are wrong? Is that what you mean? lol.

As noted above scientist are not in the 'know' business, therefore do not claim so.

Again science doesn't deal with knowledge. Science deals with theory. And there are no theory of any kind that don't propose things similar to the classic definition of God as an explanation. Every theory propose things that lie outside of our own laws and universe. And since it transcend this universe (space time energy matter)..how is that any different than say God did it?... Or that it began to exist? Every theory had a beginning all the way down to subatomic particles... even if it didn't begin in this universe, it still began in other universe.

Science does deal with knowledge. The difference between beliefs, meanings and definitions of God is that this represents extremely anecdotal claims. The knowledge and theories are based on objective methods of methodological naturalism. The comparison is not valid.

[shunyadragon]

The big bang theory postulates the origin of space and time. So whatever caused it had to be outside of it's own dimension. That is why a supernatural cause is needed to explain it because it is the beginning of the universe out of nothing. Logical deduction.

Not detached logical deduction nor reasoning. There are many theories involved in the nature of the quantum world and the beginnings of all possible universes. The beginning of a universe as the beginning of space and time of that one universe. there are not proposed alternate dimensions in science, only the quantum world from which all possible universes originate.

Therefore, logically speaking, knowing that the universe had a transcendent cause by one not made here in this universe does not mean it doesn't exist.

'knowing?' I do not believe it is 'known' one way or another.

[AkByR64]

The highlighted is problematic. First, science is not a popularity poll.

No, it's not problematic. That is the general concensus view of the age of the universe by secular scientists. I only showed you what you needed to see. lol. Whether you accept this or not is up to you.

Second, it is generally accepted that the beginning of our universe, IF there was ever actually a beginning, IS NOT consider the beginning of our physical existence which contains our universe. I do not think you are aware of what actual data the science of physics and cosmology is based on.

That's fine. What it really comes down to for me though is that the structure of the universe had a beginning in all of the theories. Even if the initial singularity is said to be it without a cause ..which is certainly not proven. What that singularity did was still caused even if it did occurred here or somewhere else. So that doesn't seem to be an issue for me. Anything and anywhere outside of that initial singularity is outside this known universe and known physics. And since it is outside of known physics and this universe.. to me this propose in some form or another..could well be God Himself.

Again scientists do not 'know' that our universe is the beginning of anything other then the universe as we experience.

Scientists don't claim that they know. You're right. They are only proposing theory. I doubt you know what theory is.

As noted above scientist are not in the 'know' business, therefore do not claim so. The science of cosmology and physics is firmly based in falsifiable objective methodology.

I agree. Scientists have admited they do not know. They use cosmology/science to explain, but honest scientists admit that they have no naturalistic to prove for it. They call it a singularity, which by definition, is an event that seems to have taken place without any natural explanation. It is by definition "supernatural" imo. A First cause has to account for the "creation of time, space, matter" which the materialist scientists cannot allow for this possibility. So they ultimately have no answer. But theists do.

As noted above scientist are not in the 'know' business, therefore do not claim so.

I agree. That still doesn't hep their argument.

Science does deal with knowledge. The difference between beliefs, meanings and definitions of God is that this represents extremely anecdotal claims. The knowledge and theories are based on objective methods of methodological naturalism. The comparison is not valid.

Science doesn't try to prove things because this is impossible to do (outside of mathematics/logic, that is). Nothing empirical can be proven. I cannot prove you are real. After all you may be a bot.

[AkByR64]

Not detached logical deduction nor reasoning. There are many theories involved in the nature of the quantum world and the beginnings of all possible universes. The beginning of a universe as the beginning of space and time of that one universe. there are not proposed alternate dimensions in science, only the quantum world from which all possible universes originate.

'knowing?' I do not believe it is 'known' one way or another.

That is still caused though. Space itself expanded out of the singularity. at least..THIS space did...THIS time...because there was a time when there was nothing.. then something led to something. So that doesn't hep your argument. So obviously it had a beginning somewhere. Or it existed outside of this time..and in something time like..or another time dimension. But if there are things outside of this time and outside of this universe..that's still just another metaphyisical claim. it hasn't been proven. Well.. I would say it's not in the sense that it unprovable scientifically. But that all they are really doing is attributing God like powers to things outside the universe that they then say "but it isn't God".