bo198214 wrote:Causality involves already time. First the cause then the effect.
Mathematical reasoning/logic has nothing to do with causality in this sense. So where applicable I always would demand validity of (mathematical) logic.
PWrong wrote:I was trying to show that Hugh's argument boils down to: "either God created the universe, or he didn't".
Icon wrote:WEll yes I agree with you, but this should be in religious debates to me
PWrong wrote:Hugh wrote:This isn't exactly correct. This statement implies that God exists. It's possible that God doesn't exist.PWrong wrote:either God created the universe, or he didn't.
What statement implies that?
Rob wrote:He means either God exists and created the universe, or God doesn't exist and something else created the universe.
PWrong wrote:I'm not implying that there is a God or that the universe was created, and I don't believe either of these.
PWrong wrote:I was implying that your definition of "nothing" and "universe" is so extreme that your conclusion is obvious and means nothing.
Hugh wrote:Rob wrote:He means either God exists and created the universe, or God doesn't exist and something else created the universe.
Then that would imply that the universe was created, and didn't always exist in some form as a "something" as earlier defined. PWrong, do you agree with that?
Okay, so you don't believe in God, or that the universe was created, so does that mean you believe the universe has always existed in some form then?
PWrong wrote:By your definition of "universe in some form", yes. You seem to define the universe as anything that can potentially become a universe, except God. You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.
PWrong wrote:So under that definition, I have no choice but to believe the universe has always existed.
PWrong wrote:However, I don't agree that your definition is a good one. It's like saying that a human egg or sperm is a fully formed human being.
Is potential in itself a something?
<snip> You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.
Nothing isn't a something, it's an absolute lack of anything, including potential or time (as bo mentioned).
PWrong wrote:Hugh wrote:Is potential in itself a something?
It is something, but it's not a universe, and you shouldn't call it one.
PWrong wrote:Potential energy uses the word "potential" in a different context.
PWrong wrote:Hugh wrote:PWrong wrote:You also seem to effectively define "nothing" as something that cannot potentially become a universe.
Nothing isn't a something, it's an absolute lack of anything, including potential or time (as bo mentioned).
Ok, I take that one back, I can't adequately defend it.
Mr. Mojo wrote:The whole point is that nothing can't come from something. And, Hugh, I still stand behind you on this. Though, I don't think that god did it, i'd take the other side of your fence, and say that 'something' was always there.
I just wanted you to know that at least one dude thought it was a good joke.
The whole point is that nothing can't come from something. And, Hugh, I still stand behind you on this. Though, I don't think that god did it, i'd take the other side of your fence, and say that 'something' was always there
moonlord wrote:As no information from a moment before Big Bang (if it exists) can reach us, because there is no medium for this, we can't test any hypothesis regarding it. FSM could've created the singularity as well.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest