What is containing the universe?

[Colibri]

Of course you’re free to say or think or feel whatever you want. Once you guys are able to demonstrate the existence of “god” based on physical evidence and mathematical analysis to the same degree of rigor that physicists have used to characterize conditions near the time of the Big Bang, let me know.

[erislover]

I see, and you’ve demonstrated, mathematically, the existence of no cause at the start of our universe (which didn’t exist anyway so there is no sense in talking about it)? That’s some trick!

Also, since I am expected to provide mathematical proof of God, please provide religious proof of physics.

That should settle the situation conclusively, wouldn’t you say?

[Scylla]

Also, since I am expected to provide mathematical proof of God, please provide religious proof of physics.

Ok.

::Ahem::

I have faith in physics.
[sub]that was easy[/sub]

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

*Originally posted by erislover *

Also, since I am expected to provide mathematical proof of God, please provide religious proof of physics.

Religious proof of physics. Let me give it a go.[list=1][li]It says so in a Book.[]Physics gives me a warm fuzzy feeling[]I know in my heart it is true[/list=1]__________________[/li]Virtually yours,

DrMatrix - Hawking said it. I believe it. That settles it!

[erislover]

A-HA! so you admit that you only have faith in physics!!! [smacks dust from hands]

[Colibri]

*Originally posted by erislover *
I see, and you’ve demonstrated, mathematically, the existence of no cause at the start of our universe (which didn’t exist anyway so there is no sense in talking about it)? That’s some trick!

Kindly do not twist my words around. If you wish to debate, please do so fairly and debate what I actually said.

I said that physicists have used evidence (such as the Cosmic Background Radiation) and mathematical analysis to rigorously analyze conditions near (that is, microseconds after) the Big Bang. Physics says, specifically, that conditions before the time of the Big Bang are unknowable by scientific methodology.

Physics says that the present Space-Time Continuum (or Universe, as I have been using the term), and thus the present time-line, begins at the Big Bang. Whether or not some other Space-Time Continuum, and thus some other time-line, existed before the Big Bang is fundamentally unknowable in scientific terms. (In my second reply in this thread, I note that I am speaking about the current Universe, and previous conditions cannot be known.)

Physicists speculate that the Big Bang may have originated as a quantum fluctuation. However, quantum fluctuations have their basis in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. They are utterly random, and in this sense cannot be said to have a “cause.” There is no “reason” that a particular quantum fluctuation occurs at one place or time and not another.

**
Also, since I am expected to provide mathematical proof of God, please provide religious proof of physics.

**

We all have our own preferred systems of epistemology. My personal preference is Science. What I said was, if you guys do come up with a mathematical proof of god, let me know. Until then, you’re not going to convince me personally.

If you prefer another system of epistemology than Science (as you seem to), then I doubt we can have an effective debate, since we are using two quite different systems of argument.

I responded to the OP, when it was in GQ, because it might have been an honest, if very naive, scientific question. (Though I suspect that Beastal may actually have had another agenda). All I can offer on the subject what Science has to say about it. If you’re not interested in that, it’s obvious that I’m not going to convince you of anything either.

I’m happy to respond to questions concerning the scientific view of the structure and origin of the Universe. I have pretty much zero interest in debating the relative value of different systems of epistemology.

In any case, the estimable DrMatrix has already provided an excellent religious proof of the validity of physics.

[jab1]

As for using Occam’s Razor to say that we shouldn’t say there is a God without empirical evidence even though Occam was a Christian, well, it wouldn’t be the first time an invention was used in a way its inventor never anticipated.

[heresiarch]

All this talk about “What came before the Big Bang?” and “What was the first cause?” is giving me a Slaughterhouse Five moment. Some things would make more sense if time ran backwards. (Apologies for the long quote, but I think it’s worth it.)

from Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Billy looked at the clock on the gas stove. He had an hour to kill before the saucer came. He went into the living room, swinging the bottle like a dinner bell, turned on the television. He came slightly unstuck in time, saw the late movie backwards, then forwards again. It was a movie about American bombers in the Second World War and the gallant men who flew them. Seen backwards by Billy, the story went like this :

American planes, full of holes and wounded men and corpses took off backwards from an airfield in England. Over France, a few German fighter planes flew at them backwards, sucked bullets and shell fragments from some of the planes and crewmen. They did the same for wrecked American bombers on the ground, and those planes flew up backwards to join the formation.

The formation flew backwards over a German city that was in flames. The bombers opened their bomb bay doors, exerted a miraculous magnetism which shrunk the fires, gathered them into cylindrical steel containers, and lifted the containers into the bellies of the planes. The containers were stored neatly in racks. The Germans below had miraculous devices of their own, which were long steel tubes. They used them to suck more fragments from the crewmen and planes. But there were still a few wounded Americans, though, and some of the bombers were in bad repair. Over France, though, German fighters came up again, made everything and everybody as good as new.

When the bombers got back to their base, the steel cylinders were taken from the racks and shipped back to the United States of America, where factories were operating night and day, dismantling the cylinders, separating the dangerous contents into minerals. Touchingly, it was mainly women who did this work. The minerals were then shipped to specialists in remote areas. It was their business to put them into the ground, to hide them cleverly, so they would never hurt anybody ever again.

The American fliers turned in their uniforms, became high school kids. And Hitler turned into a baby, Billy Pilgrim supposed. That wasn’t in the movie. Billy was extrapolating. Everybody turned into a baby, and all humanity, without exception, conspired biologically to produce two perfect people named Adam and Eve, he supposed.

Extrapolating a little more: As space shrunk, all matter rushed to a central rendezvous. The process used up every bit of entropy in the universe as all matter conspired to create a perfect quantum fluctuation.

[Beastal]

My take:

The First Cause, whatever it was, is not subject to any laws, whatsoever. If it was subject to laws, than these laws would need to be in place before the First Cause, which would, in effect, mean that the first cause was not the first cause.

Obviously not possible.

Also, there is nothing that can LIMIT the First Cause. Why? Because there is nothing already in place that can limit it. With the absense of limit, we have limitless. Also, if this something is the First Cause, that means nothing caused it. It simply always existed.

So what we have is a First Cause that:

Is unlimited in power. (Nothing that can limit it).

Is infinite (Always existed).

Does anybody see any holes here? If so, please point them out.

[erislover]

Colibri, I have no epistemology. Nothing anyone has offered me yet seems satisfactory. I’m an atheist, unless you consider Eris a goddess, in which case I am a Discordian.

Kindly do not twist my words around.

Well, what am i to do? What motivated my entrance was the mystical sayings that surround the big bang, what is outside the universe, and what was before the big bang (or that “before” has no meaning snicker). You are welcome to talk about the universe after that point (after, snicker) but hey, sorry if I felt that you didn’t respond to my point, and so “twisted” your words to attempt to bring it back on track.

In other words, and let me state this clearly, you suggested that

Once you guys are able to demonstrate the existence of “god” based on physical evidence and mathematical analysis to the same degree of rigor that physicists have used to characterize conditions near the time of the Big Bang, let me know.

Allow me to roll my eyes. :rolleyes: You want me to provide you with proof of a first cause to the same degree of proof you have for after the first cause? Well, so generous of you to afford me that possibility!

They are utterly random, and in this sense cannot be said to have a “cause.” There is no “reason” that a particular quantum fluctuation occurs at one place or time and not another.

And, similarly, God has no “cause”. There is no “reason” God came into being. It seems he was always there. (well, she, as far as Eris goes) As I said originally, I see no reason why one is automatically rejected and another accepted

Now, where was my piece of fairy cake? I feel like feeling insignificant.

[Spizner]

Question: If nothing contains space, then what exactly is space?

[More_Cowbell]

The universe is expanding, but what is it expanding into to? Is there some point that there is universe on one side and complete nothingness on the other? If so, what does that border consist of?

[Liberal]

Colibri

We all have our own preferred systems of epistemology. My personal preference is Science. What I said was, if you guys do come up with a mathematical proof of god, let me know. Until then, you’re not going to convince me personally.

Let’s see if you mean what you say.

---

Definition: God = G {God is necessary existence}

Axiom: <>G {It is possible that God exists}

Inferences:

1. G -> G {From the definition: If God exists, then He exists necessarily}

2. (p -> p) -> (<>p -> p) {Bouer’s Theorem: If the existence of p implies the necessary existence of p, then the possible existence of p implies the existence of p}

3. (G -> G) -> (<>G -> G) {Substitution}

4. <>G -> G {Modus ponens of inferences 1 and 2}

5. G {God exists, Modus ponens of inference 4 and axiom}

QED

---

The author of the above proof (I have arranged it in a way that I believe to be more sensible) is Trent Dougherty, a logician associated with The Philosopher’s Magazine (a UK publication). He comments, in part:

Since all efforts to show that the concept of God is contradictory have failed heretofore I conclude, somewhat reluctantly, that God exists. Kai Neilson tried to argue this in his debate with J.P. Moreland, but didn’t make much progress.

Now I realize that to the average person, this seems like a trick, but the average person is not particularly accustomed to following logical arguments at all, much less highly specialized forms of logical calculi developed by professional philosophers. Most professors at the University level don’t even know modal logic and many have never studied it and some have never heard of it. What do those who know it, but don’t believe in God say? They say that the concept of God is incoherent. I have not yet seen an even slightly plausible argument to that effect. Until I do, the OA will be cogent to me. I might add that I am a convert on this argument. I argued for years that the ontological argument was flawed until someone showed me the modal version.

[Liberal]

The modus ponens in inference 4 is actually of inferences 1 and 3.

[John_Kentzel-Griffin]

Libertarian,

I’m not familiar with modal logic, but it looks to me like you just proved that God must exist given the assumption (in your definition) that his existence is necessary.

I remain unconvinced.

ThunderBug,

There is no boundary. If the universe is finite, it curves back on itself. If it is infinite (which I believe is the current consensus), there would be no boundary either.

Nothing contains space. Space is that which contains all.

** Beastal**.

Something that exists outside of space/time would not be limitless. It would be very limited. How could something which exists outside of time take any action without a point in time to act?

[Liberal]

DrMatrix

I’m not familiar with modal logic, but it looks to me like you just proved that God must exist given the assumption (in your definition) that his existence is necessary.

You’re almost close. He must exist given the assumption that His existence is possible. (Reread Dr. Dougherty’s comments.)

I remain unconvinced.

Not at all surprising. Had you changed your mind based merely on the valid logic presented, I would have fainted.

[hawthorne]

“It is possible that God exists” strikes me as a pretty vague, portmanteau axiom.

[erislover]

Heavens, we’re starting this again! [runs away screaming]

[Liberal]

Smog is portmanteau. How is <>G portmanteau? And vague? Remarkable, really, that such a clear statement can be construed as “vague”.

[Liberal]

Heavens, we’re starting this again!

Of all people, Eris, you? You do not recognize that this tableau is new?