The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

I am a Christian, but i have never actually seen a good argument against atheism before. most of the time I try to stay out of arguements about religion, because I didn't ever see a good way to not loose.  Of course, this matters not, because if you don't believe in a god, most likely it doesnt matter what people tell you otherwise, and vise versa. oh, well. here it is.
 http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Intro/A-0201.htm (http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Intro/A-0201.htm)

(1) The concepts of "cause and effect" only have meaning with respect to time. If time itself began at the beginning of the universe, there is no "before", and there can be no "cause" within our universe.
This makes "everything must have a cause" unapplicable if you talk about things that happen outside of time as we know it.

Now there can be some concept of time outside of our universe, which means that you could have cause and effect outside of our universe; you could imagine the universe as one large computer-simulation, with the universe in which the computer exists having its own time.

(2) But then the claims "If the cause is eternal, it: (a) never began to exist; (b) can never cease to exist; and (c) is itself uncaused and self-existent." are still only applicable to our own universe. The cause never began to exist in our universe; it can never cease to exist in our universe (because it can never exist there); it has no cause within our universe.

(3) If we suppose that there is a cause outside of our universe, then that still does not preclude other things from existing outside of our universe. So "The only thing that could have prompted an uncaused cause to act before the universe existed is itself." is not correct either.

(4) If outside of our universe the same rules of cause and effect apply, the cause of our universe would still need a cause itself there. (If they don't apply, the point of our universe needing a cause is moot.)

(5) Even if there is no outside influence prompting a cause to create the universe, that does not make that creation a volitional act.

(6) Even if the creation of this universe is a volitional act from some being existing outside of our universe, it does not follow that this is the god as described in any particular scripture.

Oh, well. I thought it was good, anyway. But I guess it wasn't, it only took two and a half hours... :(

As far as attempts to provide a rational justification for theism goes, I think this one was rather good. It's still flawed, but at least it seemed to be a serious attempt.

I agree that the very existence of the universe doesn't seem to be "logical" in the sense that it can't possibly be deterministic. But even if you say God made it, why is there God? You can only say "well that's just the way it is", and that can be said about the universe itself too.

I find the idea that time had no beginning more appealing than the alternative, because of this lack of determinism.

It claims that the "fact that we exist" is "undeniable".

I think they need to define "exist". ^_^

"Indeed, why does anything exist at all? "

I love that question. We just don't know.

I take issue with this part though:

"2.4 What caused the universe?

The universe, by definition, is space, time, and matter. Anything consisting of, or limited by, space, time, and matter is itself merely a component part of that natural universe. So whatever caused the universe could not have consisted of those characteristics which it subsequently produced. Therefore we reason the causal force has to be:

independent of space (limitless),
independent of time (eternal), and
independent of matter (immaterial). "

This part is ridiculous imo. It's a huge supposition based on, well nothing.

For argument's sake, what if absolutely nothing existed? Couldn't everything just be deep vacuum space, devoid of matter and energy? Wouldn't the potential to move in the X,Y and Z axis still be there? So in a nutshell, did the big bang create space as we know it or is space just the backdrop or enviornment if you will where the BB took place?

In fact, I would argue quite the opposite - we do not exist. We are all just figments of TFB's imagination.

I actually roughly agree that reasoning.
Whatever created this universe, it could not be a part of it, because the universe was not around yet. If space did not exist, the Cause can not have been part of space. If time did not exist, the Cause can not have existed in time. If matter did not exist, the Cause can not have consisted of matter.

Let's see... The author can only prove to himself that he exists as an intelligent being of some sort (I think therefore I am). But he can't prove it to us. And the only thing he can safely say about us is that we exist in his perception. So ultimately, two beings can never agree on what exists and what doesn't.

The only thing he can say is "To me, the fact that I exist is undeniable."

Not that it has much to do with God anyway... :-\

You need to define "I" first.

Is there more than one definition?

Well, you have the body, memories and cognitive powers, conciousness, the sense of self.
You can deny that the body exists. Memory and cognitive powers can be an illusion. Who is "I" when unconcious? And "self" is rather vague in erm... itself, and hard to define.

"What is truth?"

I'm damn sure Thursdays are Thursdays.

It is the intelligent being making the statement, the nature of which is necessarily unknown (except that it is an existing intelligent being).

I don't think it makes sense to require that the intelligent being exist. We could as easily discuss such a statement being made by a nonexistent intelligent being.

Yeah, I was only defining it in the context of "To me, the fact that I exist is undeniable."

So you're starting out with the assumption that it exists.
"To me, the fact that I exist is undeniable." doesn't add much then.

No, I defined it for when the statement is sincere. I don't really see the point in defining it otherwise... It could be a real robot programmed to say that. It could be an imaginary being perceived to say that. That's about it... :P

To make the statement, you need a definition of "I".

You're defining "I" based on some condition which depends on the definition of "I".

What you're saying makes sense, good sense in fact. The problems are the "ifs". Scientists seem to be overstepping and supposing a little too much here imo. We can measure matter and energy and we can even see celestial objects moving apart, even at an ever increasing rate, but we can't really measure space apart from the energy and matter within it. Do we really know, or have good reason to believe that space itself is expanding? What is our scientific reasoning and/or evidence that space didn't exist at one point then came into existance at another? Same goes for time.

There is evidence  suggesting that matter and energy had a beginning. None for space and time that I'm aware of.

Space is just a conceptualization of the properties of matter.

I think of space as the vast void of nothing between celestial objects. Seems space, as it applies to matter, is simply a measurement of how much "volume" of space is taken up by the matterial.

Fine, "the being making the statement". What this being exactly is cannot be known to witnesses, but if the being is existing and intelligent, it can know that about itself. And that's the only absolute truth one could ever know. :o



Yay, physics! I've never really studied it, yet I'm fascinated by it. So you're saying the spacetime continuum does not exist without particles? I always thought those two things were separate features of the universe (a third one being the four/three/one forces).


Edit:


I read once that according to the Big Bang theory, not only matter and energy but also space were condenced in a tiny place.



The evidence only suggests that it all started from a tiny condensed space. Nothing's to say it wasn't there forever before the Big Bang.

Essentially, although I'm bothered by the word "exist" in there. :P

Normally I'd phrase it "The space-time continuum (and the forces) cannot exist independently of particles" but there I'm using "exist" in a slightly different way - as relative existence, rather than absolute existence (e.g. a different universe can exist within the field of a novel as easily as that of "real" life, but assuming it works like this one, it equally won't make sense to have space-time and forces exist without particles to substantiate them.)

So you're saying vacuum cannot possibly exist without particles? That's doesn't make much sense to me, unless you're implying that  total vacuum cannot be achieved. In that case it would make a lot of sense.

I suppose it would make sense to define a vacuum as a "lack of any particles with the given properties" (properties of being in a certain area, for instance) - in which case, if there are no particles at all, every possible vacuum exists by definition.

It is impossible to define existence. It is a basic, indivisible concept. The very laws of logic are based upon the concept of "existence", which leaves us without any way to define existence without falling into circularity. We cannot escape this system, and within this system it does not make sense that existence can be relative (though it does make sense to claim that the knowledge of whether something exists or not is relative), as it is against the very notion of existence.

Defining the self is in itself a very vague endeavor. There is nothing palpable about the self, there is no property of it that can be found in anything else, so not only do we not have anything in terms of which to define the self, but we don't even know what to look for! The self may be defined as "a conceptualization of the resources at the command of the brain at any given moment", for instance, but this definition is still horribly vague. Is "the concept of" the computer I am writing of a resource at the command of my brain? Is "the concept of" my anaesthetised leg a part of my self?

About space being merely a conceptualization of the totality of occupiable positions: You also need to add "and of the connections between them" at the end of your definition to be correct (suppose we have a set of positions, S₁, S₂, S₃ etc. - this doesn't yet tell us which position will a given particle with a given position jump to under given circumstances; we need to consider the relations between the different positions) and you simply have a different view of the same reality. One could say that matter is a conceptualization of the properties of space and he would be just as right or wrong as you.


I actually don't think it would make that much sense, at least not the way you word it. Is "the lack of any particles with the property of having a mass of 5 kg" a vacuum?

Maybe you mean that "a vacuum is a set of juxtaposed positions that are not a property of any given particle"? In which case vacuum can exist without any particles indeed.

I'm challenging the claim that you can even know that.

But before you can even reason about it like you do, you need a few more definitions. "(a) being" (as you expressed "I" a "being"), "exist", "intelligent", and "know".

If I understand correctly, you're defining space as the sum of the locations of all particles (relative to one another), rather than some different physical entity that may or may not contain particles. That would imply that vacuums are not a part of space, so if I create a total vacuum, it will be a hole in space. It would also imply that space can theoretically have any shape.

Sounds good to me. :P



Hm... I'd say that something exists if it could be witnessed with a theoretical, boundless measuring tool. With this general definition, everything I imagine exists in some form, because one could witness it in my brain.



exist - as defined above
being - something that exists
intelligent - able to produce thought
know - realize that a true statement is indeed so

The reasoning: You can't possibly consider whether you exist or not if you don't exist, and you can't possibly consider anything if you are not intelligent.

Besides the impracticality of your definition, what constitutes a "theoretical, boundless measuring tool"? A tool which can tell you what exists and what doesn't with 100% accuracy?
(Also, you should use "if and only if" and not just "if" because a definition needs to be both necessary and sufficient)

I'm not. I'm not defining space, it would be a significant effort do come up with a definition for it, and if I did, that wouldn't be it.

So how do you know that your measuring tool exists?

Define "thought".

Define "realize".

Yes, a tool that could measure anything with no limit or error, a sensor that could sense God. Anything this tool *smells* exists; anything else does not. I realize that picking such an imaginary tool seems to be "too convenient", but this is just a definition we're talking about. It's not meant to be practical, only accurate.


I don't... It's just an abstract definition for an abstract concept.


I knew you'd say that... Will this ever end? :'(

thought - err... high-level data processing? Let's just require an intelligent being to be able to ask questions.
realize - be certain that something is true.

Ok... so your definition needs someone to be able witness it. So if no intelligent being (whatever that is) exists (whatever that is), nothing else would exist either, by your definition.
And some fun cases: Does the number "2" exist? Does "fear" exist? Does "blue"? How about "a hole"?

Nope, this is philosophy.

My computer asks me questions all the time. "Where do you want to install this program?"
Are you sure you want to include my computer in your definition? It's not running Windows, but still.

Define "be certain". It involves some kind of thought process, so I suspect you still need to define "thought".

I disagree. That's only needed in order to actually find out what exists and what doesn't, not in order to define the word "exists".


I would say these things exist whenever a person fears something, something reflects the m/colou?r/ blue, or there is a hole somewhere. Our omni-sensor would detect all these things.

Of course, it's also a matter of how you specifically define them. "Blue" could be based on how the human eye perceives light, a hole could be defined with certain geometrical criteria, etc.

If you think of 2 as a quantity of objects, then it might indeed not "exist" (though that specific quantity is easy to find). I suppose this would mean that quantities with an imaginary part do not exist. And perhaps most "real" quantities too, unless there are no fundamental particles or something. I'm not good at m/maths?/. :P


But don't any of these definitions bring you closer to seeing my point?


How about...
Devises questions out of curiosity?
Able to learn through m/analy[zs]ing/ patterns of any kind?

(And at least Windows does not require its users to go through this (http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=3685.0). :P)


I wouldn't say it requires thought when you're already certain of something. Definition: unconditionally believe in something. I suppose now you'll want me to define "belief"...

I really don't see the point in all this. I didn't say anything shocking, only that if you are wondering whether you exist or not, then you are indeed wondering whether you exist or not.

A character in a novel can also wonder whether they exist or not, but they still aren't wondering whether they exist or not because they don't exist.

Also, you're trying to define thought using other words that are practically synonyms. Try defining it in terms of the material interactions on the brain.

Meep-Eep: I was expecting you to ask him to define "question". :P

Intelligence isn't that hard to define.

If it processes information, it's either intelligent, or the product of intelligence. So intelligence is defined by the ability to process information.

SO how do we define information?

Wiki:"Information is the result of processing, gathering, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver. In other words, it is the context in which data is taken."

ANd we define data is anything in our known universe that can be detected, energy,matter, time space by a biological entity.

Defining information, hmm? It's probably harder to define the act of "processing" it.

According to my definitions, the character does exist: it's a character in a novel. But I disagree that it can wonder - it can only be described as doing so.


Which words do you mean? And I didn't want to limit myself to the human brain, nor do we know that much about it anyway...


Yeah, that's why I said "high-level data processing". But "high-level" needed explanation too, so I added the pattern thingie.

That definitiion is intrinsically false, because it makes an assumption about what's at the core of this debate: The existence of a higher intelligence. If anything that processes information is intelligent or the product of it, then by this definition it must have either been created by something intelligent, or simply exists as an intelligent being with no explanation (AKA: God, and let's not mince words over the definition of existence right now). Your definition starts with an assumption on which side of this discussion is "correct," and is thus biased and unusable.

Granted, the character who exists can't wonder. The person who doesn't, can.

He didn't say "with no explanation". Apparently natural selection can do the trick.


Strictly speaking, I disagree: they can't wonder because they don't exist. (To do is to exist.)

Except that would be intelligence emerging from a non-intelligent source, and thus falls outside of the definition.

No, no.. It's a scientific observation. Whenever we witness the processing of information it's cause is always, without exception, intelligence or intelligence derived.  There are no known material, natural forces in our universe that process information or produce somthing that can process information. At least not that we are aware of. That doesn't mean there are not theories to the contrary, I'm just sticking with scientific observation of cause and effect. What we know tommorow.. Well we'll just have to wait and see. :)

Well, sure, they can't do it from our frame of reference. From their frame of reference, they do exist, and they can wonder.

So what is this relative existence, actually? Every definition of it I can think of implies some kind of absolute existence.

1. X exists with reference to Y if and only if Y exists (in an absolute reference frame). Which is merely a different way of expressing a biconditional.

2. X exists with reference to the conscious agent Y if and only if X is a figment of the imagination of Y. What does the "is" mean, though? It can't refer to relative existence, because this is the very concept we're defining. Therefore, it can only refer to absolute existence. That is, products of imagination do have absolute existence.



You should give a better definition for "information". "Information is the result of processing, gathering, manipulating and organizing data in a way that adds to the knowledge of the receiver" implies an intelligent being (the receiver), and since you defined intelligence as the ability to process information (the ability of acting as a receiver for information), you have thus entered the otherworldly realm of circular logic.


Hee-llooo!? To exist is to be detectable by a tool that can tell whether or not something exists? Isn't your definition *a little* circular?

Doesn't the "it's either intelligent" part imply that intelligence does not have to be created by intelligence?

The problem with his definition is that it implies computers are intelligent... :P


But there are... natural selection. Evolution is merely a "chaotic" product of the laws of physics.


My point is that not only does that person not exist, but also their ability to wonder. Hence "a character in a novel can wonder" does not imply that any actual wondering is possible.


My point exactly, they exist as products of imagination.


That's not exactly what I actually said. :P But I've come up with a better definition: "That which can be described, exists."

The new "that which can be described, exists" definition is way too broad. I can describe, say, a black whiteness. That is, I can say "X is a black whiteness". Yet "black whiteness" does not exist. Or, even better, I can also describe a valaggosaurus as "a giant reptiloid being with two sockpuppets and posting diarrhea", yet that doesn't mean that valaggosauri truly exist. I can describe an infinity of things, yet that doesn't mean that all of them exist. I can describe a set of mutually exclusive things, yet they can't all exist by definition.

Yes, all these things exist as concepts, but that's a different thing altogether. Your definition is not sufficient.

(Another, weaker criticism would be that it is possible that there are things that exist, yet can't be described. Things that cannot be comprehended. Thus, your definition might not be necessary)

But a valaggasaurus does exist. It is a product of your imagination. By the logic that ANYTHING exists at all, so too must ideas and theories.
If they don't exist, why would anything else exist? Or maybe ideas exist and we don't.

No one has any solid evidence that ideas do or do not exist, nor is there
any evidence that anything we percieve exists. There is no evidence that we exist. It is theoretically possible that we are not having this discussion at all, because we aren't there to have it.

The entire universe could actually be just the dream of a parasite living in a chinchilla's left nostril. But maybe that parasite doesn't exist and is actually the dream of a drunken valaggasaurus. And on and on it goes..

I disagree. A "valaggosaurus" does not exist in the way you described it, but it still exists as a product of your imagination - hence you were able to describe it.


How could you possibly be discussing the existence of this discussion without it existing?


No way. I can't say anything about you guys, but between me and me, I know that I really am conscious. It is possible, however, that I am that parasite having that dream. :-\

How do you know that a valaggosaurus doesn't exist? Perhaps there are armies of them roaming around on a strange planet somewhere in another dimension, or even in a different solar system. Have you been to every nook and cranny of the universe on a holy quest for valaggosauri?


Wouldn't that depend on what you believe exists and what doesn't?

Do you know that for certain or do you simply believe you do?

Whether multiple "dimensions" exist or not is beyond the scope of this. The idea is that I can also describe things that cannot possibly exist (things that violate the laws of logic, for example); I can even describe, say, "a red dog that is sitting right now in front of me". But my senses don't tell me that there is indeed a dog there. Yes, it's possible that my senses are fooling me, but, if we accept alephresh's definition, we'd have to make the unjustified logic leap that there is indeed such a dog there. We'd actually have to accept that everything we can conceive of, exists. This is why his definition doesn't work too well - it's a slippery slope.

Let's narrow the description of the valaggosaurus then. "a giant reptiloid being with two sockpuppets and posting diarrhea and which is an actual object - made of atoms - in the world".
It's describable, yet it doesn't necessarily exist. Not to mention that a dialethosaurus ("a 0.2 cm tall and 2 m tall reptiloid being which is both an animal and a non-animal") necessarily doesn't exist.
We can even describe things that don't exist by description: A no-saurus is a "reptilian creature that doesn't exist".

I assumed it doesn't for the sake of the argument. :P


I'm not sure what you mean... Here's my reasoning:
1. It is not possible for you to perceive this discussion if you don't exist.
2. If you perceive this discussion, then it must exist in some form (e.g. your imagination).


I know that for certain, because I wouldn't be able to ponder it otherwise. We've gone through this already. :P


I disagree, you were describing an existing imaginary concept.

I think, therefore I am.
Or do I just think that I am?

How do you know this to be true? Perhaps, somehow in some strange way, you and I do not exist, but our perceptions do exist. Things that do and do not exist do not necessarily need to be connected.
But what if things do not exist, but we can still percieve them?

I feel fail to see how there could be perceptions without perceivers.


But to be perceived is by definition to exist (at least as an imagined thing).

Hmm, you have a point. in hindsight, that isn't the best description for information because physicists often refer to information as a tangible thing that exists throughout the universe. For example, Stephen Hawking referring to information being lost or not inside a black hole. He refers to any data being information.

So there are three fundamental properties of our known universe, energy, matter and information. It's the ability to process information that defines intelligence or the product of intelligence. (and computers are the product  of intelligence alephresh ;) )
 

So now you're including physical information in your definition of information?
But a lot of things process information, and most of them are neither intelligent nor a product of any intelligent being. If a cold raindrop falls into a thermal spring, then the raindrop-spring system is going to process some information - more specifically, the spring is going to transfer some heat to the raindrop, thus "cutting" some information from the spring and "pasting" it to the raindrop.
Nearly every physical system processes information. Yet to call all of them "intelligent beings" would be to stray *a little* too much from what is generally accepted as "intelligence".

Oh, I see what you mean now. But still, your definition of intelligence (by the ability to process information) is too general, because it defines both intelligence and computers.

Anyway, it seems like "data processing" (or a "data processor") has to be defined as a whole, not by defining both words separately, because "data" (or "information") is only meaningful in the context of intelligence and computers. It is the fuel for data processing - any media which can be processed by a certain processor, i.e. its compatible input and memories.

That is exactly where that argument flops. But who knows? It might still be possible.

Defintions are all fine and good, but they are not necessarily correct.
Prove to me that you need to exist in order to be percieved. 

Uhh ok I guess.. That seems a stretch though, seems what you describe is simply the mixing or scrambling of information rather than processing it in any way.

Wiki [Processing typically describes the act of taking something through an established and usually routine set of procedures to convert it from one form to another, as a manufacturing procedure, such as processing milk into cheese. Processing can also refer to administrative procedure such as processing paperwork to grant a mortgage loan.

To me, Information processing can only be done by an intelligence and fit's more into that wiki description. So intelligence and information processing are mutually exclusive yes, but that doesn't mean information processing can only be done by intelligence, just that intelligence is currently the only know source. There lies my escape hatch from a circular argument. :)

As Elvish Pillager said,
I'll admit, that is a tough one.

But there's not universal "correctness" for definitions, they're only needed for successful communication. And I think that most people would agree with the notion that "to do is to exist". It's like a trivial special case of existence. Another less trivial one is "to be perceived is to exist".