Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"so you acknowledge that the two options i posted are irrational?"

No, but even if they are, your dichotomy is a false one-because it doesn't consider a third option- so you're argument is invalid.

(I could hold this view, even if I think that you've failed to demonstate the irrationality of either proposition.)

this question was in response to autonemisis.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ComestibleVenom
Please be assured that I recognize your sincerity.

1.Your argument is flawed in the two most basic ways that arguments go wrong. First of all, it's logically invalid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

2.Secondly, it begs some important questions. "Nothingness" plays no logical role in scientific theories of the early universe. Thus, your claim that it does play some incoherent role misses the point: there is no such role to be played.

3.In fact, theism is weaker for it's claims to have the solutions to such overarching questions. Naturalism rejects the questions themselves, realizing that human intuitions have proven pathetically inadequate to the task of understanding the physical universe.

1.please indulge me in how the conclusion does not follow from the premises. break it down for me.

2. i agree, there is no such role to be played, that is my point. i need you to disprove 1. first.

3. maybe so, i am not appealing to theism

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"so you acknowledge that the two options i posted are irrational?"

No, but even if they are, your dichotomy is a false one-because it doesn't consider a third option- so you're argument is invalid.

(I could hold this view, even if I think that you've failed to demonstate the irrationality of either proposition.)

what third option?

Just_An_Atheist · 05-21-2003, 12:03 PM

"what third option?"

Well, somewhere amidst the pile of posts, I left the link. But, here it is again.

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_...ess_point.html

Sicknss Unto Despair · 05-21-2003, 12:06 PM

quick correction, the link is... http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_...less_point.htm

Bill Snedden · 05-21-2003, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
1. the universe is everything that exists at all times in all places
2. the universe began to exist
3. therefore (if naturalism is true) non-existence or "nothingness" is logically prior to the universe.
what is wrong with this logic?

I'm not sure that anything is wrong with the "logic". The argument appears to me to be valid in form. However, I would take issue with some of the premises:

P1: "at all times" suggests that the universe is constrained by time. That is not necessarily true.

P2: "the universe began to exist" is factually untrue. The universe had no "beginning." A beginning requires the existence of time. However, the existence of the observable universe (our time-space continuum) and time are concurrent; there was no "before" the universe.

C1: "nothingness" cannot, by definition, be logically prior to anything. "Nothingness" as a putative state of affairs is logically impossible. If "nothingness" were ever to have actually been instantiated, then "nothingness" would still be the case (as "nothingness" represents a lack of everything, including potential). As "something" exists now, "something" must always have existed.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Just_An_Atheist
"what third option?"

Well, somewhere amidst the pile of posts, I left the link. But, here it is again.

http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_...ess_point.html

i printed out the article, it will some time before i can read it. why dont you tell me the basics and we can go from there.

Autonemesis · 05-21-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by thomaq
so you acknowledge that the two options i posted are irrational?

No, but even if they are, your dichotomy is a false one - because it doesn't consider other possibilities that exist - so your argument is invalid.

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden
I'm not sure that anything is wrong with the "logic". The argument appears to me to be valid in form. However, I would take issue with some of the premises:

P1: "at all times" suggests that the universe is constrained by time. That is not necessarily true.

P2: "the universe began to exist" is factually untrue. The universe had no "beginning." A beginning requires the existence of time. However, the existence of the observable universe (our time-space continuum) and time are concurrent; there was no "before" the universe.

C1: "nothingness" cannot, by definition, be logically prior to anything. "Nothingness" as a putative state of affairs is logically impossible. If "nothingness" were ever to have actually been instantiated, then "nothingness" would still be the case (as "nothingness" represents a lack of everything, including potential). As "something" exists now, "something" must always have existed.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

p1 restated : the universe is all that exists

p2. i agree, there was no "before" the universe existed

c1. i agree with your assessment.
and just to be clear, you agree that it is irrational to believe that something can come from nothing?

so the universe has always existed in some form or another, how did space/time come about?

thomaq · 05-21-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Autonemesis
No, but even if they are, your dichotomy is a false one - because it doesn't consider other possibilities that exist - so your argument is invalid.

if those were the only two options, are they irrational? if not then why not?
so what is this third option? break it out for me.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2003, 12:03 PM	#84
Just_An_Atheist Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 134	"what third option?" Well, somewhere amidst the pile of posts, I left the link. But, here it is again. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_...ess_point.html

05-21-2003, 12:06 PM	#85
Sicknss Unto Despair New Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: California Posts: 3	quick correction, the link is... http://www.qsmithwmu.com/time_began_...less_point.htm

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.