ATTN PORKENBEANS

[Napoleon Ier]

OA, I agree that any answer to "what came before the universe" is illogical, simply because the question is as well. You are talking about an event with a time co-ordinate that preceeds (whatever that means, given the context) the existence of a time axis. It's like asking "What is north of the north pole?" - an inherently illogical and meaningless question. That said, I shall wait to hear the rest of your argument with great interest.

Not really... they say something came from a necessarily existent metaphysical entity.

Your ontological arguments again, right? Napoleon, I find it very interesting that you try to use logic to justify the existence of a god, when said god is explicitly defined (by Ambrose, admittedly, but it is his thread that you are posting in) to be illogical in nature.

You can argue about necessary existence and blather your Heidegger at me on it, but illogicity, if there's one thing it isn't, then it's a property.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Staying purely in the grounds of logic, I will reiterate: it is purely through logic that my contention stands: logic itself denies the notion of causality here.

Here are several questions, which all have the same answer.

(1) What happened before time began?
(2) What is outside the physical limits of the universe?
(3) What happens after you go past infinity?
(4) What happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object?

The answer is: don't be silly. The question is meaningless - pay particular attention to the words in italics.
There can be no "before" time, by definition.
There can be no "outside" the universe, by definition.
There can be no "after" infinity (Buzz Lightyear, please note),by definition.
There can be no "irresistable" if there is an "immovable", or vice-versa, by definition.

The fact that we can string these words into a sentence indicates nothing.

I will direct you to my first post in response to Neutrino here, as I think you are making roughly the same points.

PS @ Neutrino - good to see you back out here in these religion threads, it seems like it's been awhile

[CrazyAnglican]

Hey Neutrino,

What's shakin'?

I am just a little uncomfortable with the claim that God is "illogical by nature." God is above logic, and His existence therefore is necessarily beyond it.

Kind of like stating that the author of a book cannot be presumed to be affected by events in the timeline, being separate from it in reality?

[mpjh]

logic smogic.

So take you logicsnobbery elsewhere.

Ahh, Aristotle rears his ugly head. Didn't we have enough of the philosophical reasoning through the dark ages. Logic means nothing if you don't have empirical evidence, that is what science requires, otherwise you are simply contemplating your navel.

Given that OA has shown a willingness to show evidence for his assertions, I'm not sure where you're criticism comes from or what it amounts to. Please don't attempt tp derail the thread. If you have something of consequence to say, by all means do, but ad-hominems are certainly not called for.

My posts were in response to a discussion jonesthecurl was having. He presented logic only and no evidence, the Aritotle philosophy method.

[CrazyAnglican]

An ad-hominem is an ad-hominem, Jonesy doesn't deserve it as he can carry his own with the best of them in a debate. If there is a flaw with his reasoning please show it without the fallacy of name calling.

[mpjh]

I didn't call jonesthecurl a name. Besides he can speak for himself. The purpose of my last post was to correct the mistaken impression that you left that I was responding to someone other than Jonesthecurl (af fairly typical tack of yours). My only quarrel with him is that he is not using the scientific method.

[CrazyAnglican]

Ah yes, How "typical" of me. coughs ad hominem.

Nobody says you have to agree with anyone, but you seem to be coming into a logical debate (started specifically to avoid a further derail of a thread the YOU started) and state how useless logic is. To top that off you've told one of the respondents to take his "logicsnobbery" somewhere else. With all due respect, he's participating in the discussion and bringing some good ideas to the table. If logic isn't your cup of tea that's fine, but there's no sense trying to belittle anyone.

[mpjh]

I didn't say logic was useless, but it is insufficient to provide an answer that is scientifically valid. Science need empirical evidence. This is the chief failing of Aristotle's philosophical approach to knowledge. Aristotle, and those that followed him, opposed the use of experimentation to test theories, in fact they executed such persons throughout the dark ages. That is what the dark ages were all about, the suppression of science by govenment in cahoots with the church, both relying on Aristotle for their principle secular guidance.

[Neutrino]

I believe that God is beyond logic because God is beyond time. God being the creator of all things is also the creator of logic, thus is makes sense that God's existence violates logic.

I am not proposing this as an argument that God exists, I am just a little uncomfortable with the claim that God is "illogical by nature." God is above logic, and His existence therefore is necessarily beyond it.

Yeah, that's the idea I was trying to get across; sorry about the bad phrasing. God is not bound by the laws of logic, so using them to justify God is an invalid method. Since this is the basis of all ontological arguments, they are also - dispite Napoleon's views otherwise - also invalid.

If you're cool with that, we can shift gears into point 2.

Yep, I think moving on to the next stage of your argument will be for the best.

[jonesthecurl]

(excuse post-lag)

Well, I realised at least that it was me you were accusing of being Aristotelian. And you are correct, I was.
I was however engaging in a discussion which may just proceed if OA's "point 1" is conceded.

"point 1" would now appear to be that logic stops working at a certain point, and that "Something can't come from nothing" is not a valid statement. Or alternatively (according to other posters) that it is a valid statement and logically proves that the universe "came from" something else.

My (logical) position on this has been, and continues to be, that we can apply logic here: I fail to see how a neverending (and neverbegining) universe contradicts logic. Or how a universe which did have a beginning cannot just start with the first thing that happens - and indeed must do. It is logic itself which states that there either was a start or not. Logic seems happy to me with either.

Maybe we're now discussing the nature of logic?

[porkenbeans]

Before we do that. can we have a clarification on the definition of "logic" and "illogical" ?
I have seen them used as, logic = fact or truth, and illogical = not true or false.
I understand these terms to mean, logic = most likely to be factual or true, and illogical = least likely to be factual or true.
The word "logic" does NOT denote "truth". It denotes to, the search for the truth, by examining all the available evidence. "Logical" is the same as "probable" with a "most" in front of it.

[OnlyAmbrose]

The word "logic" does NOT denote "truth". It denotes to, the search for the truth, by examining all the available evidence.

I'd define that more as "reason" and "empiricism."

Wikipedia gives a fair definition of logic:

Logic concerns the structure of statements and arguments, in formal systems of inference and natural language. Topics include validity, fallacies and paradoxes, reasoning using probability and arguments involving causality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I fail to see how a neverending (and neverbegining) universe contradicts logic.

Relying on an infinite chain of events goes beyond logic because logic, due to causation, relies on a sequence of events, each of which has a cause. The idea is that each event relies on a prior event in order to happen, and that prior even relies on another prior event, etc. "Infinite" essentially means "never." For instance, in the mathematical equation y = 1/x, y will never equal zero. 1/0 can be said to equal infinite, and it can also be said to equal "does not exist." This is also stated as y = 0 when x = infinite, or y = DNE when x = infinite. As far as causation is concerned, if the number of events in the past is infinite, then the present never happens.

While I am not ruling out infinite regression as a possible explanation, I am ruling it out as a logical one.

Or how a universe which did have a beginning cannot just start with the first thing that happens

It violates causation. An uncaused cause is illogical because the human understanding is that every event must have a cause. If there is an uncaused cause, it is contrary to human understanding.

[mpjh]

we can never pronounce knowledge of causes and their effects in a necessary manner: epistemologically, causality cannot be necessary, according to the inferences we can make about it. But there is also an ontological sense in which causality is never necessary. This comes from the fact that when effects issue from necessary logic, necessary logic is not, properly speaking, standing in a causal relation to them at all. When something is caused, this presupposes that it could have been otherwise; we must be able to cogitate the idea that the cause was never present at all, in order to suppose that were it not for the cause there would not have been the effect. Since it is impossible to cogitate a true contradiction, we must hold that everything that issues from the fact that there are no true contradictions are not caused by that fact, as the term is properly used. The conclusion is that nothing can be caused by there being no true contradictions, any more than it is possible to suppose that, were there true contradictions, any given situation would not have arisen from the fact. It is impossible to cogitate a situation where there are true contradictions to begin with; hence, if P is a necessary truth, it is not merely untrue, but utter nonsense, to do thinking along the lines of: "If not for P, such and such would not have followed."

Hence, both from an epistemic and ontological perspective, causality is never a logically necessary relation.

[OnlyAmbrose]

we can never pronounce knowledge of causes and their effects in a necessary manner: epistemologically, causality cannot be necessary, according to the inferences we can make about it. But there is also an ontological sense in which causality is never necessary. This comes from the fact that when effects issue from necessary logic, necessary logic is not, properly speaking, standing in a causal relation to them at all. When something is caused, this presupposes that it could have been otherwise; we must be able to cogitate the idea that the cause was never present at all, in order to suppose that were it not for the cause there would not have been the effect. Since it is impossible to cogitate a true contradiction, we must hold that everything that issues from the fact that there are no true contradictions are not caused by that fact, as the term is properly used. The conclusion is that nothing can be caused by there being no true contradictions, any more than it is possible to suppose that, were there true contradictions, any given situation would not have arisen from the fact. It is impossible to cogitate a situation where there are true contradictions to begin with; hence, if P is a necessary truth, it is not merely untrue, but utter nonsense, to do thinking along the lines of: "If not for P, such and such would not have followed."

Hence, both from an epistemic and ontological perspective, causality is never a logically necessary relation.

Would you care to put that in your own words, preferably much smaller and in sentences easier to understand? I'm not Nappy, I don't have a vocabulary rivaling Webster's and an understanding of grammar like an English major

I'm gathering that you disagree with the principle of causality, and that's fine I guess, because it also means that you're disagreeing with the foundation of logic (hence your criticism or Aristotle). Alright, I guess I can take that as a concession to point 1 in a rather roundabout way...

[OnlyAmbrose]

In any case, mpjh, from what I can gather of that rather wordy bit of quotation, I think that as far as you are concerned I am set to move on to point 2.

Simply waiting on Jones and then we'll be set

[mpjh]

the big bang for one

String theory for another

I'm not all too familiar with string theory, but I don't think you're thinking on the right track. The Big Bang theory is NOT an explanation for how the universe came to be, it's a proposition for how it came to be in the shape that it is in now. Where stuff came from is what we're getting at, NOT how matter came to be in the state it is.

Basically it boils down to this: what caused the big bang? What caused what caused the big bang? You ask these questions until you reach one of two points: An uncaused cause or infinite regression. Both illogical.

Given that, can we now agree to this?

Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

I was leaning towards the idea of the Big Crunch that postulates that after the Big bang expands out far enough it eventually slows and then begins to collapse back on itself until finally coming back together and creating another Big Bang. This process is continued for eternity. There seems to be a snag though. The universe is apparently speeding up and not slowing down in its expansion.
Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

Your are make more sense all the time, porkenbeans.

[jonesthecurl]

In any case, mpjh, from what I can gather of that rather wordy bit of quotation, I think that as far as you are concerned I am set to move on to point 2.

Simply waiting on Jones and then we'll be set

No no no.
"logic" allows us to examine the question of whether causality is absolute.
I contend that logic tells us it is not. As stated before, logic tells us that things either began or did not. in either case the logical conclusion is that cuasality (not logic) fails. If time never began, causality is never breached, it just goes back and back. If time did begin, logic tells us that there must have been a single first nanosecond, a first event, with no "before" and no cause.
This does not defy logic, it is determined by logic.

[mpjh]

I think you and I are speaking of a different senses of causation, jc.

I was trying to support the argument that logic doesn't require causation, maybe we are close?

[OnlyAmbrose]

In any case, mpjh, from what I can gather of that rather wordy bit of quotation, I think that as far as you are concerned I am set to move on to point 2.

Simply waiting on Jones and then we'll be set

No no no.
"logic" allows us to examine the question of whether causality is absolute.
I contend that logic tells us it is not. As stated before, logic tells us that things either began or did not. in either case the logical conclusion is that cuasality (not logic) fails. If time never began, causality is never breached, it just goes back and back. If time did begin, logic tells us that there must have been a single first nanosecond, a first event, with no "before" and no cause.
This does not defy logic, it is determined by logic.

I think at this point we're just arguing over the semantics of "logic". So long as you are willing to concede that the existence of the universe goes beyond what we currently perceive as normal or natural, I am willing to go on.

[mpjh]

I certainly am not willing to concede that.

[jonesthecurl]

Close. I'm saying that logic tells us that causation either goes back infinitely so that there is NO beginning, or that there is a beginning which is where causality starts - there is only one first time, like losing your virginity. BTW, is anyone gonn write that book? I sure would like a copy.

Lets try this once more from a slightly different angle.
If things began, they began. No prior cause (no prior time).
If not, they go back infinitely. No prior cause (no beginning).

It is logic alone that leads me to this conclusion.

[mpjh]

I think you present a interesting argument, jc, but from a scientific view you need empirical evidence. Those postulating the big bounce and big bang are trying to predict what would flow from their respective theories and then look for such results in today's universe. Similarly the string theory people are doing the same. Each is having varying success. You are presenting hypotheses that remain to be fully explored and tested. In other words, only half the job.

[jonesthecurl]

I am not advocating Big Bang/Suck, Steady State, Flat Earth, or All-on-the-back-of-a-Turtle.
The logic involved has not yet even waved "hello" to reality.
OA suggested that there were logical consequences from "Something can't come from nothing". His conclusion, as I understand it, is that logic shows that logic itself fails in the face of this axiom.
I am trying to show that logic itslef denies this axiom when we examine the origin of any imaginable universe (not just the one we seem to be sitting in).
Any empirical evidence would merely be an example of a particular universe (this one).
So far, I have not even stated an opinion. Merely followed the logic of questioning the axiom "everything has a cause".
I am presenting zero hypotheses, not even trying to choose between the two alternatives my logical analysis seems to present.

[mpjh]

Well, then my reference to Aristotle previously seems even more appropo, and the subsequent piece on the conclusion that "causality is never a logically necessary relation" even more relevant. Simply put, I don't think you can answer the question of whether the universe had a beginning or what that beginning was with logic as you only tool.

[jonesthecurl]

You're in danger of agreeing with the OP.