mystery of life

[Miserabilia]

K, here's just some random thoughts of mine, which I have been thinking about all day now.
If you are like me, you must have often been bothered in your mind by questions of life, the universe, and everything. ofcourse we all know the answer is 42, but anyway,
I was just thinking about life and I did some research and I came to this realisation that changed the whole way I think about life.

(btw this may turn out to be a it long so yea goodluckwiththat, if its too long and you don't want to read it dats okay, I just felt like writing it down)

So back to the point,
scientists think they know (sort of) how "life" started.
I just know the concept and I'll make it even simpler because I don't want this to be super-duper-hyper long (also I find it harder to explain in english and I'm no expert), so basicly:
you are on earth, before "life", back when earth was one strange boiling spicy mix of chemicals. When water came, these molecules get moved thru the water, etc, and being moved around a little a huge amount of combinations between them occurs.

Some of them can create a chemical reaction, but then after a while, it stops. however, some molecules have a hydrophobic side, which means that they want to "face" non-water at one side.
So when you have a few molecules and you place the molecules i mentioned earlier they go around it in a circle; all the hydrophobic sides facing the molecules in the center.

So you have a little protective layer around whatever combination of molecules you have. With the earth in the state it was, basicly every single combination occurs.
So at some point, you have a molecule with a hydophobic layer around it, and they sort of stay together instead of moving around randomly thru water.
Now, after a while, something may happen to it that does break it, the molecules escape and roam around freely again.

But let's say that somehow you have something inside that hydrophobic layer thingy, that just happens to have a chemical reaction (or multiple chemical reactions) that cause it to split up? Then after a while you have two of those.
It's not "life" and it's not "trying to survive" its just a coincidental combination of chemicals.

So what happens? It splits up, so now, even if one of them breaks, the other can just split up again. And this splitting up combination of chemicals is almost like DNA- and at some point, it will be a slightly different combination (like a genetic defect)
and give it a different quality, like a better layer around it, or making it "feed" on different molecules.

By a bunch of coincidences, we now almost have cells! The ones that don't have a specific right set of chemicals to make them feed and reproduce just break and fall appart into a bunch of loose molecules,
but the ones that do, "survive"
So you see a kind of natural selection, even tho these things aren't technicaly alive: natural selection doesn't just cause new species; it caused life.

It just goes on and on like that, untill we see bacteria like cells, and then we get the rest of the organisms we know of.

But then, at animals, it starts getting difficult. We now have such a huge complex colony of cells with those lucky chemicals, they are becoming "intelligent". As we get closer to humans, you see the brain taking a huge role,
and why is this strange?


Because basicly, we have such huge understanding, and knowledge, caused by our brain capasity, that we can know more then is benificial for us. Humans probably a hunderd times more brain power then we actually need to survive;
so why do we have it?

This is not even the strangest part:
the strangest part, is probably conciousness.
Why do we have a part in our brain (and so do a few other animals we know off, tho scientists aren't sure) that makes us FEEL like we live?

Why do we want to know?
An ant for example, just IS.
An ant won't KNOW when it dies. An ant wont FEEL anything. It may respond to things, and do everything it can to survive, but it doesnt LIVE the way we imagine living is.

Why do a select few species have that ability to feel like we are in controll? To be aware? What is the point? There is no increased survival chance (as far as we know)
so why are we granted this?


So what is my conclusion and argument, then?

Well, this may be strongly against what most people beleive, but there is not simply "life". I do not beleive in "life". Life is just a really complicated chain of chemical reactions, caused by coincidence and natural selection in the early stages of earth, when it was still a chemical extrevaganza.

There is no "soul" in people or animals, there is no"thinking", "thoughts' and "will to survive".
Life is just a term made up by people to feel comforted, because we just don't like the thought that we are in the same amount of controll of what happens to us as a PIECE OF ROCK.

picture for awesomenes
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media/inline/74809441-AE6B-8F90-86C3A1FCCA4C5963_1.jpg
https://31.media.tumblr.com/cba08e2d7495fe106f90153437b65df3/tumblr_my2nwi8HDy1t7io4qo1_500.jpg

-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[darthearth]

................ there is no"thinking", "thoughts' and "will to survive".
Life is just a term made up by people to feel comforted, because we just don't want to except the fact that we really are in the same amount of controll of what happens to us as a PIECE OF ROCK.

What a perfect example of materialism. You should get an award. We are nothing much more than a rock. Charming.

I'll wait for the materialist atheists to fully demonstrate non-guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. The burden is on them to prove the scalability of the arguments that you exemplified. Saying "that it just scales up" is far from convincing.

[conniption]

Our very basic understanding and definition for life is when an organism is able to reproduce, grow, feed itself, etcetera. These things are life, but they don't have to be the only things. The purpose of life is to survive, everything else comes after that. If you're alive and fully concious of the yourself and the world around, then you can interpret life any other way you want.

[Miserabilia]

Our very basic understanding and definition for life is when an organism is able to reproduce, grow, feed itself, etcetera. These things are life, but they don't have to be the only things. The purpose of life is to survive, everything else comes after that. If you're alive and fully concious of the yourself and the world around, then you can interpret life any other way you want.

I know the techinical definition of life.
But when you see "the purpose of life is to survive", I have to dissagree.
There is no "purpose".
It's just that when an organism doesn't have the genes that make it try to survive, it doesn't, and it doesn't reproduce.
So the ones that do things that make them survive, survive.

That's why we only know life that makes itself survive.

What a perfect example of materialism. You should get an award. We are nothing much more than a rock. Charming.

I'll wait for the materialist atheists to fully demonstrate non-guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. The burden is on them to prove the scalability of the arguments that you exemplified. Saying "that it just scales up" is far from convincing.

This make you seem kind of hypocrite, because instead of actually giving arguments your self you seem to be mocking me for my idea.

I think I've given more arguments then you can for your theory.

[darthearth]

This make you seem kind of hypocrite, because instead of actually giving arguments your self you seem to be mocking me for my idea.

I think I've given more arguments then you can for your theory.

I'm not mocking you, I am congratulating you on such a pure piece of materialism. You are correct, the end of materialism is a conclusion that is like you made, we are not much more than a rock. It was a good example of that particular viewpoint.

My argument? Given the complexity of our bodies and the fact there is consciousness, it is most reasonable to first assume that we were designed intelligently for the purpose of conscious beings experiencing an ordered world. If one chooses to argue for that which is non-intuitive, it is up to that one to make a convincing case. Given the failure to demonstrate fully and completely an atheistic and materialist evolution from chemical soup to us, the first assumption stands.

[Miserabilia]

I'm not mocking you, I am congratulating you on such a pure piece of materialism. You are correct, the end of materialism is a conclusion that is like you made, we are not much more than a rock. It was a good example of that particular viewpoint.

My argument? Given the complexity of our bodies and the fact there is consciousness, it is most reasonable to first assume that we were designed intelligently for the purpose of conscious beings experiencing an ordered world. If one chooses to argue for that which is non-intuitive, it is up to that one to make a convincing case. Given the failure to demonstrate fully and completely an atheistic and materialist evolution from chemical soup to us, the first assumption stands.


"What a perfect example of materialism. You should get an award. We are nothing much more than a rock. Charming."
well I'll just ignore the obvious sarcasm there???


My argument? Given the complexity of our bodies and the fact there is consciousness, it is most reasonable to first assume that we were designed intelligently for the purpose of conscious beings experiencing an ordered world. If one chooses to argue for that which is non-intuitive, it is up to that one to make a convincing case. Given the failure to demonstrate fully and completely an atheistic and materialist evolution from chemical soup to us, the first assumption stands.

Our bodies are complex the way they are because of natural selection; a proven process.
I can give more evidence for evolution and the origins for life then you EVER can for your theory and some divine being desinging things and making them concious about it for some unclear reason.
While I can't FULLY prove that what I said is the way life started and evolves, it's a theory that works with everything we already know of life, and the laws of nature.

However, a theist theory can't be proven like that; so all you can do is point out the flaws in my theory, without actually forming your own evidence.
Saying there is a "designer" only adds one more step to the problem; where does that deisnger come from? Why is the designer there?
let's just stick to what we know; life is here. And we can see it's there.

If you're going to assume that a god is just there because it is, why couldn't you assume the same about life?
If not, then you must accept that your designer has his own designer, and that designer has a designer, ascending into infinity.

[darthearth]

well I'll just ignore the obvious sarcasm there???




Our bodies are complex the way they are because of natural selection; a proven process.
I can give more evidence for evolution and the origins for life then you EVER can for your theory and some divine being desinging things and making them concious about it for some unclear reason.
While I can't FULLY prove that what I said is the way life started and evolves, it's a theory that works with everything we already know of life, and the laws of nature.

However, a theist theory can't be proven like that; so all you can do is point out the flaws in my theory, without actually forming your own evidence.
Saying there is a "designer" only adds one more step to the problem; where does that deisnger come from? Why is the designer there?
let's just stick to what we know; life is here. And we can see it's there.

If you're going to assume that a god is just there because it is, why couldn't you assume the same about life?
If not, then you must accept that your designer has his own designer, and that designer has a designer, ascending into infinity.


I am not arguing against evolution itself, I'm reasonably skeptical that it could have occurred without a Divine providence, as in, a providence that creates the appropriate environmental situations that will eventually lead to us. Divine guidance can be definitively shown to be unneeded only through full and complete demonstration of primordial soup to conscious humans without intelligent guidance. As to where the designer comes from, see my thread Transcendent cause to the Universe: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

In my thread Transcendent cause to the Universe I argue for the "God" concept as commonly defined. One of the defined characteristics is that God is necessarily existent. If God necessarily exists, then God exists everywhere (is omnipresent), and since God also must be able to produce contingency, this would be the function God uses to guide environmental conditions for His providence. It goes something like that. :)

[Miserabilia]

I am not arguing against evolution itself, I'm reasonably skeptical that it could have occurred without a Divine providence, as in, a providence that creates the appropriate environmental situations that will eventually lead to us. Divine guidance can be definitively shown to be unneeded only through full and complete demonstration of primordial soup to conscious humans without intelligent guidance. As to where the designer comes from, see my thread Transcendent cause to the Universe: http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

In my thread Transcendent cause to the Universe I argue for the "God" concept as commonly defined. One of the defined characteristics is that God is necessarily existent. If God necessarily exists, then God exists everywhere (is omnipresent), and since God also must be able to produce contingency, this would be the function God uses to guide environmental conditions for His providence. It goes something like that. :)

Yea I checked out your thread but I didnt really get it.
Are you saying the universe needs a cause, and god is the only cause because god is infinite or something? Sorry but my english isn't good enough to get all of it xD

[Silicate Wielder]

What a perfect example of materialism. You should get an award. We are nothing much more than a rock. Charming.

I'll wait for the materialist atheists to fully demonstrate non-guided evolution from primordial soup to conscious us. The burden is on them to prove the scalability of the arguments that you exemplified. Saying "that it just scales up" is far from convincing.

Now, I don't know if your religious or not; but anyone who is religious may want to pay attention.

So basically life is a coincidence? You could say the same about god and heaven now couldn't you? where did god come from, and where did heaven come from? and even if there is some sort of long chain of people or gods or supreme beings or whatever you want to call them that created each other, and lead to the creation of god and heaven that chain of whatever it is had to have started somewhere. It's impossible to have no beginning but an end so to speak; which in religious views would be doomsday. meaning it had to have started somewhere, therefore from my understanding god is the result of a coincidence.

Perhaps we are a mere rock, or perhaps there is some sort of supreme being. But my point is. EVERYTHING started with a coincidence.

[Miserabilia]

Now, I don't know if your religious or not; but anyone who is religious may want to pay attention.

So basically life is a coincidence? You could say the same about god and heaven now couldn't you? where did god come from, and where did heaven come from? and even if there is some sort of long chain of people or gods or supreme beings or whatever you want to call them that created each other, and lead to the creation of god and heaven that chain of whatever it is had to have started somewhere. It's impossible to have no beginning but an end so to speak; which in religious views would be doomsday. meaning it had to have started somewhere, therefore from my understanding god is the result of a coincidence.

Perhaps we are a mere rock, or perhaps there is some sort of supreme being. But my point is. EVERYTHING started with a coincidence.

basicly this ^

[RoseyCadaver]

I know the techinical definition of life.
But when you see "the purpose of life is to survive", I have to dissagree.
There is no "purpose".
It's just that when an organism doesn't have the genes that make it try to survive, it doesn't, and it doesn't reproduce.
So the ones that do things that make them survive, survive.

That's why we only know life that makes itself survive.


While I agree with most of what you have said (however I would like to believe there is some cosmic force pushing on for our existence or some meaning/story/reason behind our life) biologically speaking, most things do try to reproduce.

The only reason why it "doesn't reproduce" is because it can't. Either physically or by situational means (can't find a mate or not enough food to produce viable off spring).

Purpose is a human thought, an idea. However, you can't say life isn't designed to reproduce, because it is. All the mechanisms for survival are for, in the end, reproducing or caring for other offspring.

[Miserabilia]

While I agree with most of what you have said (however I would like to believe there is some cosmic force pushing on for our existence or some meaning/story/reason behind our life) biologically speaking, most things do try to reproduce.

The only reason why it "doesn't reproduce" is because it can't. Either physically or by situational means (can't find a mate or not enough food to produce viable off spring).

Purpose is a human thought, an idea. However, you can't say life isn't designed to reproduce, because it is. All the mechanisms for survival are for, in the end, reproducing or caring for other offspring.

I just explained this????
Life does "try" to reproduce,
because if it doesn't try to reproduce and survive, it doesn't, therefore it doesn't pass on its genes.
Life that does have genes that make it try to survive and reproduce do,
and that life continues.
Thus, we only know life that tries to survive and reproduce.

[Bleid]

Now, I don't know if your religious or not; but anyone who is religious may want to pay attention.

So basically life is a coincidence? You could say the same about god and heaven now couldn't you? where did god come from, and where did heaven come from? and even if there is some sort of long chain of people or gods or supreme beings or whatever you want to call them that created each other, and lead to the creation of god and heaven that chain of whatever it is had to have started somewhere. It's impossible to have no beginning but an end so to speak; which in religious views would be doomsday. meaning it had to have started somewhere, therefore from my understanding god is the result of a coincidence.

Perhaps we are a mere rock, or perhaps there is some sort of supreme being. But my point is. EVERYTHING started with a coincidence.

You'd be guilty of the same line of reasoning that you're trying to rebuke, here.

If this alleged coincidence started everything, then we can ask the same exact questions about this coincidence, and we're again left with no answer. The issue still persists.

However, in addition to this? The coincidence idea being the starting point is silly to begin with.

A coincidence can only occur when there is already a state of affairs by which a coincidence could come from. Otherwise? There couldn't be a coincidence.

So, it still leaves everything else open to being the case. Something needs to be there in order for the coincidence to be the case, and so, nothing would even be achieved even given that God or the world or any other thing is the result of a coincidence.

[darthearth]

Now, I don't know if your religious or not; but anyone who is religious may want to pay attention.

So basically life is a coincidence? You could say the same about god and heaven now couldn't you? where did god come from, and where did heaven come from? and even if there is some sort of long chain of people or gods or supreme beings or whatever you want to call them that created each other, and lead to the creation of god and heaven that chain of whatever it is had to have started somewhere. It's impossible to have no beginning but an end so to speak; which in religious views would be doomsday. meaning it had to have started somewhere, therefore from my understanding god is the result of a coincidence.

Perhaps we are a mere rock, or perhaps there is some sort of supreme being. But my point is. EVERYTHING started with a coincidence.

I'm not sure what you mean by opening with the question "So basically life is a coincidence?" Did you somehow misunderstand I implied a coincidence with my post, or are you introducing a new idea? It seems this question actually results from the process of evolution itself to me. But anyway, your argument involves infinite regression. This is why it is necessary for things to begin with some entity that is necessarily existent, thus avoiding the infinite chain of causes. See Bleid's comment about the "coincidence" thing.

[Silicate Wielder]

Okay so my post earlier was redundant.

Anyway, perhaps we're going about this question with the wrong type of thinking. Perhaps we need to learn of a new way of thinking that is new to humanity in order to solve this age old question?

For example: Maybe the universe is evolving, but with our current understandings and technological feats we cannot fathom such an event taking place, perhaps that is why the universe is expanding forever, and maybe it needs life to support it's evolution to it's goal.

[Miserabilia]

Well there's one thing that basicly can be proven, if not it's atleast a theory that works with what we now know of life.
That is that life could very possibly be the result of a coincidence; when so many different chemical combinations occur, natural selection starts amongst them, and you can see how it goes from there.

[rogoshtalmour]

All i want to say is if life is a result of just random events and evolution then honestly there is no real point or purpose for your life. I see no hope in this. If we are just an accident whats the point of going on.

[Miserabilia]

All i want to say is if life is a result of just random events and evolution then honestly there is no real point or purpose for your life. I see no hope in this. If we are just an accident whats the point of going on.

For the universe- there is no point. There is a beginning and time goes on from there, moving along a single line.
But for us, for us, there is a point.
Enjoy life. It is amazing, even if it is the result of a coincidence.
Our brains are so complex, we can just think of a purpose of life.

[Sanctum]

, even if it is the result of a coincidence.
Our brains are so complex, we can just think of a purpose of life.

I don't think it can be a result of coincidence.
How can a coincidence build such organized world?
Well there is some process in the evolution of the world but i dont think the cause is a coincidence.

[Miserabilia]

I don't think it can be a result of coincidence.
How can a coincidence build such organized world?
Well there is some process in the evolution of the world but i dont think the cause is a coincidence.

How can a coincidence build such organized world?

The universe is organized and chaotic at the same time.
As for life: natural selection.
It's the "designer" of nature.

Well there is some process in the evolution of the world but i dont think the cause is a coincidence.

Evolution of the world? Do you mean life?
You aren't being really clear.

[Sanctum]

The universe is organized and chaotic at the same time.
As for life: natural selection.
It's the "designer" of nature.



Evolution of the world? Do you mean life?
You aren't being really clear.

Yes evolution of the life.
Chaotic and organized at the same time?
Sounds hilarious for me.
I do believe natural selection but you are looking at the specifics.
Try to have a thourought view to the world.

[Miserabilia]

Yes evolution of the life.
Chaotic and organized at the same time?
Sounds hilarious for me.
I do believe natural selection but you are looking at the specifics.
Try to have a thourought view to the world.

If you wer to actually look into the subject, you would see that the world is organized and chaotic, in the fact that everything works by laws and cause and effect, but these effects are so complicated that they seem chaotic from a human point of view.
The world is like an extremely complicated tapestry, everything is connected, smaller effects influence bigger ones, etc.

I do believe natural selection but you are looking at the specifics.

What do you even mean? "The specifics" please elabortate.

Try to have a thourought view to the world.

Funny, but it seems like I have done a little more research into this subject then you, so if you atleast tried to have a more "thourought" view of the world you could understand.

[Sanctum]

If you wer to actually look into the subject, you would see that the world is organized and chaotic, in the fact that everything works by laws and cause and effect, but these effects are so complicated that they seem chaotic from a human point of view.
The world is like an extremely complicated tapestry, everything is connected, smaller effects influence bigger ones, etc.



What do you even mean? "The specifics" please elabortate.



Funny, but it seems like I have done a little more research into this subject then you, so if you atleast tried to have a more "thourought" view of the world you could understand.
Research?thats the point.
As far as i know researches has not proven the origin of life clearly.
And you call the world and this effect chaotic because you can not assure yourself of a reasonable creator or origins for this world.

[Miserabilia]

Research?thats the point.
As far as i know researches has not proven the origin of life clearly.
And you call the world and this effect chaotic because you can not assure yourself of a reasonable creator or origins for this world.

1: There is more research and proove for evolution (and natural selection is a fact), then there will ever be for theist influence.

2: I call the world and its effect chaotic, because (like I previously said) it seems chaotic to humans, for the fact that we do not know the position and movement of every single thing in this universe, we can only see the big picture; for example, we can only predict about the time and about where it will rain, but we can never calculate it 100% accurate, because we simply cannot aqquire such information.

Also, I'm just going to stop you right here because it sounds like you either don't know what you are talking about or you refuse to beleive anything that goes against your "beleifs".

[Sanctum]

1: There is more research and proove for evolution (and natural selection is a fact), then there will ever be for theist influence.

2: I call the world and its effect chaotic, because (like I previously said) it seems chaotic to humans, for the fact that we do not know the position and movement of every single thing in this universe, we can only see the big picture; for example, we can only predict about the time and about where it will rain, but we can never calculate it 100% accurate, because we simply cannot aqquire such information.

Also, I'm just going to stop you right here because it sounds like you either don't know what you are talking about or you refuse to beleive anything that goes against your "beleifs".
Ok right.
At least i know why i am in this world and why i am living which seems you don't.

[Miserabilia]

Ok right.
At least i know why i am in this world and why i am living which seems you don't.

?
not even sure how to respond to that.

[Sanctum]

?
not even sure how to respond to that.

Yeah.
Cause you haven't even think about that and if you do you will probably find no answers

[Miserabilia]

Yeah.
Cause you haven't even think about that and if you do you will probably find no answers

I have *thought about that, and my answer is the original post in this thread. And even if I don't know "why I am here", what does it matter?
Do I have to make up some impossible deity to proove that I am important? No, I'd rather stick with the facts.
Thanks for completely lowering the quality of this thread.

[rogoshtalmour]

but an accident by definition is something that happens without intention or necessity. So while i guess you can find something to do and create a purpose it still won't matter much. In the end it will just be an offshoot of an accident.

[Miserabilia]

but an accident by definition is something that happens without intention or necessity. So while i guess you can find something to do and create a purpose it still won't matter much. In the end it will just be an offshoot of an accident.

Basicly, yes.

[darthearth]

1: There is more research and proove for evolution (and natural selection is a fact), then there will ever be for theist influence.


We don't even scientifically understand the nature of p-consciousness to be able to make any such statement. Further, it may be the case that full evolutionary simulations from primordial soup to conscious us are unable to achieve our body's complexity without intelligent guidance of the environment. Plus I know of no logical case made for a necessary mutual exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theistic influence that would substantiate the phrase "there will ever be".

[Miserabilia]

We don't even scientifically understand the nature of p-consciousness to be able to make any such statement. Further, it may be the case that full evolutionary simulations from primordial soup to conscious us are unable to achieve our body's complexity without intelligent guidance of the environment. Plus I know of no logical case made for a necessary mutual exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theistic influence that would substantiate the phrase "there will ever be".

To make any what statement? Natural selection is a fact, and there is still much much more proof for evolution (I'd say evolution is a fact, just look at bacteria in hospitals), then there is for influist from any deity.

Further, it may be the case that full evolutionary simulations from primordial soup to conscious us are unable to achieve our body's complexity without intelligent guidance of the environment.

Here we go again, making the problem more complicated...
By adding a "designer" to it, you ned to explain your designer.
How did the designer become intelligent?
It just goes on infinitly from there, only making more questions then answering them.

Plus I know of no logical case made for a necessary mutual exclusivity of evolution/natural selection

?
What? (maybe I just don't understand what you mean)
Natural selection = weak organisms die, stronger ones survive = fact
Evolution: Just look at antibiotics and bacteria. Evolution is basicly a fact, it's just the evolution from one cell to mankind the people doubt.

[darthearth]

To make any what statement? Natural selection is a fact, and there is still much much more proof for evolution (I'd say evolution is a fact, just look at bacteria in hospitals), then there is for influist from any deity.

The "statement" was the declarative statement I quoted. We do not have a materialist explanation for phenomenal consciousness, and further, evolution through natural selection is not necessarily exclusive of divine providence.

Here we go again, making the problem more complicated...
By adding a "designer" to it, you ned to explain your designer.
How did the designer become intelligent?
It just goes on infinitly from there, only making more questions then answering them.

This is off topic isn't it?


What? (maybe I just don't understand what you mean)
Natural selection = weak organisms die, stronger ones survive = fact
Evolution: Just look at antibiotics and bacteria. Evolution is basicly a fact, it's just the evolution from one cell to mankind the people doubt.

Not mutual exclusivity of evolution and natural selection, but mutual exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theistic influence that would substantiate the phrase "there will ever be".


The problem with your statement is the non-exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theist influence, and the fact there is no purely physical theory of consciousness at the present time. These things do not support your statement, they are counter to it.

[Miserabilia]

The "statement" was the declarative statement I quoted. We do not have a materialist explanation for phenomenal consciousness, and further, evolution through natural selection is not necessarily exclusive of divine providence.



This is off topic isn't it?



Not mutual exclusivity of evolution and natural selection, but mutual exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theistic influence that would substantiate the phrase "there will ever be".


The problem with your statement is the non-exclusivity of evolution/natural selection and theist influence, and the fact there is no purely physical theory of consciousness at the present time. These things do not support your statement, they are counter to it.


Okay let me explain why I do not beleive conciousnes has a non-materialistic source.

People used to think think god made the earth and made a sun to spin around it and some stars at night for christmas lighting or something.
People did not know what stars were or where they came from.
People didn't even know where rain came from.
First there is air, then water falls down.
What did they think? They thought the gods created the rain.

When people don't know the answer to something they just explain it to themselves with help of something supernatural.
However, when they actually learn where rain comes from, what stars are, and that the earth is round and revolves around the sun,
they don't need a god for that anymore.

So they say, okay, maybe god didn't do all that.
But he still did *insert something we don't know exactly how it works yet*

See how people use god to solve a problem they can not yet solve.
Using a god to explain it is easy, but the chances are that it is far from the truth.
(based on what people used to think gods did)

The more we find out, the less religion becomes nescecary.
So even if materials does not yet have a complete explanation of conciousnes (awarenes) which is by the way still just a feeling, and therefore only some animals can have,
I will not comfort myself by saying it is caused by a god or something outside the world we know.
I would rather not know how it works,
then having to make something up.

The most a religious person can do is try to disproove what other people say or point out flaws in any theory, instead of forming their own.
I can give you full proof of evolution and origins of life without influence from any god,
but you are not able to give a single proof for the existence from god.
That's why you have to point out flaws in existing theories.

[darthearth]

I can give you full proof of evolution and origins of life without influence from any god,
but you are not able to give a single proof for the existence from god.
That's why you have to point out flaws in existing theories.

So you believe consciousness has a non-materialistic source, because in the past people thought rain came from a god and such. O.K. But the quality of phenomenal consciousness is on a whole different level. To me, this is obvious, but apparently to you it isn't (as of yet anyway). But really, thank you for enlightening me on the thought process that motivates you so strongly.

But you most definitely cannot give a full proof of evolution and the origins of life without influence of any god. To even attempt this would require, in part, a simulation of the whole process from primordial soup to conscious us without such influence, and this simulation simply does not exist. I never claimed any scientific theory to be flawed. You just made an overreaching claim that was unjustified. The claim was this:

1: There is more research and proove for evolution (and natural selection is a fact), then there will ever be for theist influence.

[Miserabilia]

So you believe consciousness has a non-materialistic source, because in the past people thought rain came from a god and such. O.K. But the quality of phenomenal consciousness is on a whole different level. To me, this is obvious, but apparently to you it isn't (as of yet anyway). But really, thank you for enlightening me on the thought process that motivates you so strongly.

But you most definitely cannot give a full proof of evolution and the origins of life without influence of any god. To even attempt this would require, in part, a simulation of the whole process from primordial soup to conscious us without such influence, and this simulation simply does not exist. I never claimed any scientific theory to be flawed. You just made an overreaching claim that was unjustified. The claim was this:

See you're doing it again.
You still haven't given me any proof of the existence of a deity.
Because you can't.
You can't give proof.
I can give proof for evolution.
You can not give proof for a god.
So what seems more exceptable of a theory.
It's as simple as that.

[Bleid]

See you're doing it again.
You still haven't given me any proof of the existence of a deity.
Because you can't.
You can't give proof.
I can give proof for evolution.
You can not give proof for a god.
So what seems more exceptable of a theory.
It's as simple as that.

I wouldn't be so hasty with that part, there. It can lead us to a bit of a problem.

Consider an analogous situation:

1. "All bachelors are unmarried men." (The theory that has proof)

And now, consider we are back in the 1500s when Galileo Galilei spoke of his theory:

2. "The Sun is the center of our solar system." (The theory with no current proof (1500s))

Now, does the fact that (1.) has proof for it somehow make Galileo's theory (2.) any less acceptable, even though there was no proof for it at the time?

We certainly agree that Galileo's theory was accurate and acceptable, I hope. Perhaps not at the time (1500s), but that is the entire point that I'm making. Simply because there is no proof at the time, this does not make the theory of any less worth for future acceptance.

They're both acceptable theories. One just doesn't have proof at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't also be accurate and factual, hence, acceptable.

[Miserabilia]

I wouldn't be so hasty with that part, there. It can lead us to a bit of a problem.

Consider an analogous situation:

1. "All bachelors are unmarried men." (The theory that has proof)

And now, consider we are back in the 1500s when Galileo Galilei spoke of his theory:

2. "The Sun is the center of our solar system." (The theory with no current proof (1500s))

Now, does the fact that (1.) has proof for it somehow make Galileo's theory (2.) any less acceptable, even though there was no proof for it at the time?

We certainly agree that Galileo's theory was accurate and acceptable, I hope. Perhaps not at the time (1500s), but that is the entire point that I'm making. Simply because there is no proof at the time, this does not make the theory of any less worth for future acceptance.

They're both acceptable theories. One just doesn't have proof at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't also be accurate and factual, hence, acceptable.

So do you honestly think, that in the future anything about the existence of god will be proven to be true?
Has anything ever been proven about the existence of god?
No.

Atleast with a theory like the earth revolves around the sun, you know you can make a measurement of calculation to proove it.
"GOd" is just someting, somewhere, that somehow exists, and has no visable proof.
If you can even think of a way to proof the existence of god, please tell me.
But here's the problem; you can't.

[darthearth]

See you're doing it again.
You still haven't given me any proof of the existence of a deity.
Because you can't.
You can't give proof.
I can give proof for evolution.
You can not give proof for a god.
So what seems more exceptable of a theory.
It's as simple as that.

Why do you keep insinuating that I don't believe in evolution? I DO believe in evolution. And also you can give strong EVIDENCE for evolution but not a PROOF. I don't think we even consider the General Theory of Relativity PROVEN, I would suggest you be more careful at word choice. And what does proof of God have to do with anything here? I just pointed out an inappropriate overreaching statement.

[Gigablue]

Why do you keep insinuating that I don't believe in evolution? I DO believe in evolution. And also you can give strong EVIDENCE for evolution but not a PROOF. I don't think we even consider the General Theory of Relativity PROVEN, I would suggest you be more careful at word choice. And what does proof of God have to do with anything here? I just pointed out an inappropriate overreaching statement.

Very true. Science does't really consider anything to be proven. When we say something is true in science, it only means that our best experiments haven't been able to disprove it. Even the most well established concepts could be overturned in light of new evidence.

You can prove things in math, or using pure logic, but not in science.

[Bleid]

So do you honestly think, that in the future anything about the existence of god will be proven to be true?
Has anything ever been proven about the existence of god?
No.

Atleast with a theory like the earth revolves around the sun, you know you can make a measurement of calculation to proove it.
"GOd" is just someting, somewhere, that somehow exists, and has no visable proof.
If you can even think of a way to proof the existence of god, please tell me.
But here's the problem; you can't.

It is irrelevant as to what I think about the provability of a deity's existence. I am certainly no where close to opposed to the idea that proof could be formed for it (or proof of the negation).

And simply because something has yet to be proven, just like with the example of Galileo's theory of heliocentricism - this has nothing to do with whether or not it could be proven in the future.

Yes, though. You can demonstrate heliocentricism to be the case in many different ways (space observation, mathematical necessities, gravity), and we know this now. But that's the entire point. If they could have shown it long before then, they likely would have. But not only did they not have the technology, they didn't have the understanding to do so. Which, might just be around the corner for God's existence, which is why I wouldn't be so hasty to discount the theory of God's existence based on no current or past proof for it.

And here's a problem:

If you can even think of a way to proof the existence of god, please tell me.
But here's the problem; you can't.

This is also a claim that needs justification. If something is not provable, then there is a reason that it is not provable. So, you need to provide a reason for us to believe that it cannot be proven, rather than to ask us (me, specifically) to provide you with a reason that it can be, because I did not assert that it could be, but simply:

That I wouldn't be so hasty to assert that (it is an unacceptable theory simply because there is no current proof of it.)

And even in the statements in this post; I was not making claims about provability, but only that current lack of proof does not beget non-provability. The burden is on you for that claim of non-provability.

[Miserabilia]

It is irrelevant as to what I think about the provability of a deity's existence. I am certainly no where close to opposed to the idea that proof could be formed for it (or proof of the negation).

And simply because something has yet to be proven, just like with the example of Galileo's theory of heliocentricism - this has nothing to do with whether or not it could be proven in the future.

Yes, though. You can demonstrate heliocentricism to be the case in many different ways (space observation, mathematical necessities, gravity), and we know this now. But that's the entire point. If they could have shown it long before then, they likely would have. But not only did they not have the technology, they didn't have the understanding to do so. Which, might just be around the corner for God's existence, which is why I wouldn't be so hasty to discount the theory of God's existence based on no current or past proof for it.

And here's a problem:



This is also a claim that needs justification. If something is not provable, then there is a reason that it is not provable. So, you need to provide a reason for us to believe that it cannot be proven, rather than to ask us (me, specifically) to provide you with a reason that it can be, because I did not assert that it could be, but simply:

That I wouldn't be so hasty to assert that (it is an unacceptable theory simply because there is no current proof of it.)

And even in the statements in this post; I was not making claims about provability, but only that current lack of proof does not beget non-provability. The burden is on you for that claim of non-provability.

We know there is a sun. We know we are on the earth. We can observe the sun seemingly moving around us.
Tho they didn't know yet that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, these are all observable things that influence the world.

God has no influence on the world. If you could tell me an influence god has on the world, you might say there is a reason or proof for god.
Why would you want to assume something exists if there is literaly no reason for it to exist, it has no influence on the world whatsoever.

[Bleid]

We know there is a sun. We know we are on the earth. We can observe the sun seemingly moving around us.
Tho they didn't know yet that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around, these are all observable things that influence the world.

Yes, certainly.

God has no influence on the world. If you could tell me an influence god has on the world, you might say there is a reason or proof for god.
Why would you want to assume something exists if there is literaly no reason for it to exist, it has no influence on the world whatsoever.

Well, that's the issue here. You don't know if that's actually true. You'd have to assume that a deity doesn't exist to be influencing the world in order to say that you know for certain that it isn't.

What I mean is, there are two possibilities:

1. God(s) doesn't exist.

2. God does exist.

If #1 is true, then certainly you're correct, but we do not know that #1 is correct. It could be that #2 is correct, in which case, you'd be wrong on that.

You have to assume that God doesn't do anything (we don't know this) to say that it's a pointless hypothesis. We couldn't apply Ockham's Razor to God's existence in the universe for this same reason.

[Miserabilia]

Yes, certainly.



Well, that's the issue here. You don't know if that's actually true. You'd have to assume that a deity doesn't exist to be influencing the world in order to say that you know for certain that it isn't.

What I mean is, there are two possibilities:

1. God(s) doesn't exist.

2. God does exist.

If #1 is true, then certainly you're correct, but we do not know that #1 is correct. It could be that #2 is correct, in which case, you'd be wrong on that.

You have to assume that God doesn't do anything (we don't know this) to say that it's a pointless hypothesis. We couldn't apply Ockham's Razor to God's existence in the universe for this same reason.

No I literaly mean, it's not just that you can't proof the existence of god; it's that there's not even an existence to proof.
I find it hard to explain, maybe you know what I mean maybe not.
I also know what you mean with the #1 #2 thing but,
what I am trying to say:

There has never been any official recording or any observation of any influence from any god.
So assuming god does somehow exist, if he/she has no influence at all over the world, do they really exist?
That sounds really vague but I hope you know what I mean.
The only possibility for the existence of god is than that god somehow created the big bang, and then watched the show.

So the point is not that you can't proof god, the point is that one can not show influence from god, so there would be no point in saying if he/she's there or not.

[Bleid]

No I literaly mean, it's not just that you can't proof the existence of god; it's that there's not even an existence to proof.
I find it hard to explain, maybe you know what I mean maybe not.
I also know what you mean with the #1 #2 thing but,
what I am trying to say:

There has never been any official recording or any observation of any influence from any god.
So assuming god does somehow exist, if he/she has no influence at all over the world, do they really exist?
That sounds really vague but I hope you know what I mean.
The only possibility for the existence of god is than that god somehow created the big bang, and then watched the show.

So the point is not that you can't proof god, the point is that one can not show influence from god, so there would be no point in saying if he/she's there or not.

Well the issue there is of epistemology, though. God, if it were to exist and exhibit its traits such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, then certainly it would be able to act through the environment by this - such that, everything that occurs could be the result of a God's effort. Such as:

Natural selection is a principle because of a God's intervention to allow our universe to act in such a manner; stars explode because a God oriented the physical properties of a universe as such, and so on.

(Not saying that's true, but it's a possibility)

And that might seem like an unnecessary assumption that God deems it so, but this is only an unnecessary assumption if we assume a God isn't needed for our universe to exist the way it does, which isn't genuinely known to be true. Since, we could just be ignorant of how such a God acts on the universe.

So, it could still be in such a case that we just simply do not know what a God's influence actully looks like, and since we do not know, we are saying it's not there.

If we say that a God is unnecessary, we'd be assuming that things can work without a God, which assumes we know that there isn't a God, because we would need an example of everything working without any effort on a God's part, to justify the claim that things can work without one.

Summary:

It's a big circular-reasoning loop if we say God is unnecessary, so it doesn't exist, because we need to already believe it doesn't exist in order to say it's unnecessary.

[Miserabilia]

Well the issue there is of epistemology, though. God, if it were to exist and exhibit its traits such as omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, then certainly it would be able to act through the environment by this - such that, everything that occurs could be the result of a God's effort. Such as:

Natural selection is a principle because of a God's intervention to allow our universe to act in such a manner; stars explode because a God oriented the physical properties of a universe as such, and so on.

(Not saying that's true, but it's a possibility)

And that might seem like an unnecessary assumption that God deems it so, but this is only an unnecessary assumption if we assume a God isn't needed for our universe to exist the way it does, which isn't genuinely known to be true. Since, we could just be ignorant of how such a God acts on the universe.

So, it could still be in such a case that we just simply do not know what a God's influence actully looks like, and since we do not know, we are saying it's not there.

If we say that a God is unnecessary, we'd be assuming that things can work without a God, which assumes we know that there isn't a God, because we would need an example of everything working without any effort on a God's part, to justify the claim that things can work without one.

Summary:

It's a big circular-reasoning loop if we say God is unnecessary, so it doesn't exist, because we need to already believe it doesn't exist in order to say it's unnecessary.


"we'd be assuming that things can work without a God, which assumes we know that there isn't a God"

How exactly does that assume that?

[Bleid]

"we'd be assuming that things can work without a God, which assumes we know that there isn't a God"

How exactly does that assume that?

Because we have no other manner by which we can justify the assumption otherwise.

Hopefully you'd agree with:

We are not certain as to whether or not there is a God.

From this, we have no justification to say that our universe can operate without a God, because we have no example of a universe that we know can exist in the same way ours exists, but without a God.

And if we're to try to argue that ours is this universe that operates without a God? Then, well, tautologically, we're obviously assuming that ours does not have a God that has to operate with it.

If we try to say that ours can operate without a God, and our universe is the only example of a universe that we have, then we must be assuming that ours doesn't have a God, to justify our idea that it doesn't need one.

(This same flaw can be noted in Marquis de Sade's "Dialogue Between a Priest and a Dying Man")

You see the necessary implication of believing that our universe can work without a God? You have to also believe that ours doesn't have one, which is what is trying to be demonstrated in the first place. Which is why it's circular.

[darthearth]

"we'd be assuming that things can work without a God, which assumes we know that there isn't a God"

How exactly does that assume that?

Why do the physical laws always stay pretty much constant? Does this necessarily have to be true? One can imagine a world where the physical laws change in some manner, perhaps cyclically or such. Does it take a god-like being to keep them constant? We don't know. This illustrates the assumption.

[Bleid]

Why do the physical laws always stay pretty much constant? Does this necessarily have to be true? One can imagine a world where the physical laws change in some manner, perhaps cyclically or such. Does it take a god-like being to keep them constant? We don't know. This illustrates the assumption.

This is spot-on.

It demonstrates the idea perfectly.

Scientific conclusions can only ever get us to a description of the world we observe, after all. It is not immediately clear that there does not need to be a God to make the world the way it is.

[Miserabilia]

This is spot-on.

It demonstrates the idea perfectly.

Scientific conclusions can only ever get us to a description of the world we observe, after all. It is not immediately clear that there does not need to be a God to make the world the way it is.

If you would need a god to keep natural laws constant, you would need a god to keep the god constand and a god to keep that one and so forth.
Whenever you assume some kind of god you have to keep going into infinity.

[Bleid]

If you would need a god to keep natural laws constant, you would need a god to keep the god constand and a god to keep that one and so forth.
Whenever you assume some kind of god you have to keep going into infinity.


Not necessarily - that is also unknown.

That's making assumptions we cannot justify, as well.

Since, you are not certain that causality must also apply to God (which, presumably would be the creator / originator of causality). There is nothing saying our reasoning in the universe that would originate due to a God would necessarily also apply to the God itself.

[Miserabilia]

Not necessarily - that is also unknown.

That's making assumptions we cannot justify, as well.

Since, you are not certain that causality must also apply to God (which, presumably would be the creator / originator of causality). There is nothing saying our reasoning in the universe that would originate due to a God would necessarily also apply to the God itself.

That doesn't make much sense to me.
If you can assume a god doesn't need a cause or something to keep it working, you could just assume the same of laws of physics.
If you assume god is needed to stabalize physics, you might as well say that god is needing a god to stablize itself too, etc. If you say a god stablizes physics but that god does not need a cause or stablizer then you are just adding one step to the problem.

[Bleid]

That doesn't make much sense to me.

It shouldn't - that's the point of transcendence - it's inscrutable.

If you can assume a god doesn't need a cause or something to keep it working, you could just assume the same of laws of physics.
If you assume god is needed to stabalize physics, you might as well say that god is needing a god to stablize itself too, etc. If you say a god stablizes physics but that god does not need a cause or stablizer then you are just adding one step to the problem.

Not necessarily, because the laws are a certain way within this universe - which are not transcendent, because they are present in this universe and so, they are scrutable.

And no. You're not adding a step to the problem if physics needs stabilization but God doesn't - since, you just stop at God, justifiably.

I can see why you have an issue - but nothing here is being said in hopes to show that God is in existence. We're simply being fair to the theistic position.

We're saying that it is not at all unlikely or impossible by any means that (God is in existence and brought about the universe and continues to influence it).

And we're also not necessarily claiming it's likely, just because it isn't unlikely.

And any reasoning of the following forms is invalid:



Some arbitrary scientific conclusion seems to work without a God, therefore there is no need for a God.

There would need to be a cause/reason for God, too.

A God has no visible influence on the world, so it's an unnecessary hypothesis.

We can apply the same reasoning on the physical world to God. (In other words, if the physical world needs a justification, God needs a justification)

Demonstratable, too. Let me know if you have any disagreements with an item in the invalid reasoning list and I'll explain. That list is also not complete, either.

[Miserabilia]

It shouldn't - that's the point of transcendence - it's inscrutable.



Not necessarily, because the laws are a certain way within this universe - which are not transcendent, because they are present in this universe and so, they are scrutable.

And no. You're not adding a step to the problem if physics needs stabilization but God doesn't - since, you just stop at God, justifiably.

I can see why you have an issue - but nothing here is being said in hopes to show that God is in existence. We're simply being fair to the theistic position.

We're saying that it is not at all unlikely or impossible by any means that (God is in existence and brought about the universe and continues to influence it).

And we're also not necessarily claiming it's likely, just because it isn't unlikely.

And any reasoning of the following forms is invalid:



Demonstratable, too. Let me know if you have any disagreements with an item in the invalid reasoning list and I'll explain. That list is also not complete, either.

:what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what:
What i mean is, if there was a god needed to keep natural laws stable, then that god certainly has influence on the world by doing so.
So if he has influence on the world isn't that also being present in the universe?
I mean, lets just say there is definetly a god needed to keep natural laws stable. then that god has to do something, apply something to this universe, so in that way be must also be in this universe, making it impossible for it to be transcendent.
I mean, the only way god could be truly transcendent was if he had no influence, making the whole god problem irrelevant anyway.

[Bleid]

:what::what::what::what::what::what::what::what:
What i mean is, if there was a god needed to keep natural laws stable, then that god certainly has influence on the world by doing so.
So if he has influence on the world isn't that also being present in the universe?

I mean, lets just say there is definetly a god needed to keep natural laws stable. then that god has to do something, apply something to this universe, so in that way be must also be in this universe, making it impossible for it to be transcendent.
I mean, the only way god could be truly transcendent was if he had no influence, making the whole god problem irrelevant anyway.

Well, not necessarily, because the God itself is transcendent (outside of the universe) so there is nothing saying that it has no manner by which it can manipulate the universe from outside with us being ignorant that it even influenced it at all.

For example, consider there's a fish in an opaque fish tank and it cannot see the floor of its fish tank because the floor is covered by pebbles.

Then I tilt the tank, from the outside, revealing to the fish that the floor is actually glass; not pebbles, and the pebbles merely rest on top of the floor.

Do you see how I did not need to be in the fish tank to be able to manipulate that which is inside it? And I'm not even an alleged 'all powerful' being, that has anything and everything at its disposal.

And as well, the world is still occurring a certain way within the fish tank because of my influence on it. And you can measure and observe what happened in the fish tank, but not myself, because I am outside the fish tank.

[Miserabilia]

Well, not necessarily, because the God itself is transcendent (outside of the universe) so there is nothing saying that it has no manner by which it can manipulate the universe from outside with us being ignorant that it even influenced it at all.

For example, consider there's a fish in an opaque fish tank and it cannot see the floor of its fish tank because the floor is covered by pebbles.

Then I tilt the tank, from the outside, revealing to the fish that the floor is actually glass; not pebbles, and the pebbles merely rest on top of the floor.

Do you see how I did not need to be in the fish tank to be able to manipulate that which is inside it? And I'm not even an alleged 'all powerful' being, that has anything and everything at its disposal.

And as well, the world is still occurring a certain way within the fish tank because of my influence on it. And you can measure and observe what happened in the fish tank, but not myself, because I am outside the fish tank.

Yes I am awear of how that works, but it is completely not the point, since the fish would see things completely move and change on their own, which is according to fishtank logic (for as for as the fish knows) impossible.
We however do not see things move around and change without any cause in this universe.

[Bleid]

Yes I am awear of how that works, but it is completely not the point, since the fish would see things completely move and change on their own, which is according to fishtank logic (for as for as the fish knows) impossible.
We however do not see things move around and change without any cause in this universe.

Those physical laws of cause and effect could be entirely the work of a God's action, being omnipotent as it would be - the analogy still applies, and included is the fact that I am not omnipotent.

Further, the fish is ignorant of any reasoning and logic that would permit the pebbles to move, and so, it still applies in that respect.

Similarly, as well, we do not know why any of our physical laws are in place, (no cause and effect to explain them) and so, we're just as ignorant as that fish is, but simply think we know more.

We only know that there are physical laws. We do not know the wherefore of them. Exactly the same way the fish would know the pebbles move, and this would be a physical law dictated by my intervention, but it would not be known as to why this is a physical law.

[Miserabilia]

Those physical laws of cause and effect could be entirely the work of a God's action, being omnipotent as it would be - the analogy still applies, and included is the fact that I am not omnipotent.

Further, the fish is ignorant of any reasoning and logic that would permit the pebbles to move, and so, it still applies in that respect.

Similarly, as well, we do not know why any of our physical laws are in place, (no cause and effect to explain them) and so, we're just as ignorant as that fish is, but simply think we know more.

We only know that there are physical laws. We do not know the wherefore of them. Exactly the same way the fish would know the pebbles move, and this would be a physical law dictated by my intervention, but it would not be known as to why this is a physical law.

But then again you get the problem, of when there would be a god we don't know why and how it is there.
The fact that it is outside our universe doesn't mean that god would need no cause whatsoever.
The problem is that god is defined as something like a person; a being.
This is a huge problem, because:

Let's say some crazy theory I heard of; our universe is like a 4d ball, floating around in an infinite space with other 4d balls, and it used to be empty untill it collided with another and mass and energy from the other universe entered ours.
This would explain how a big bang started: and you don't have to explain how mass got into the 4d ball unvierse anyway, because it is infinite in time and space.
We know our universe is finite, but if the 4d balls universe is infinite, you kind of solve the problem.

*this is all just an example*

But the problem with god: god is described as a being or almost a person that is concious.
The fact that it is a being making descicions to create a universe must mean that it somehow came to make the decision to do whatever it did for this universe; whether it is creating it or stablizing laws of nature.
If it made the decision to do this, it must have not made the decision to do this before and after that.
Meaning that it is not infinite and needs an explanation.

[Sugaree]

So what is my conclusion and argument, then?

Well, this may be strongly against what most people beleive, but there is not simply "life". I do not beleive in "life". Life is just a really complicated chain of chemical reactions, caused by coincidence and natural selection in the early stages of earth, when it was still a chemical extrevaganza.

There is no "soul" in people or animals, there is no"thinking", "thoughts' and "will to survive".
Life is just a term made up by people to feel comforted, because we just don't want to except the fact that we really are in the same amount of controll of what happens to us as a PIECE OF ROCK.


You continue living your existence as a piece of rock, I'll continue living my existence as a human being. I agree with what Darth said in the first reply, this is a perfect example of just all out materialism. It's really cute, too, how you act like you've just figured it all out and think we should just live in complete pity for ourselves because we're apparently nothing too special. It's not like we took millions of years to get to where we are through an evolutionary process or that we're sentient beings that have made electronic machines and a mass wireless intercommunication device called the Internet to communicate with each other...oh, wait.

Mirman also put it in good terms: If you're alive and fully conscious of the world around you, then you can interpret life anyway you want. Obviously your interpretation is that you're just a piece of rock. Ok then, go hide under a bridge if that's the case, obviously that's where you must belong. Yes, at its core, life is a simple chemical reaction, but that's if you get into the nitty gritty details. Life is more than what the nitty gritty details present to us. Life is experiencing a lot of different things while we're in a conscious state.

[Miserabilia]

You continue living your existence as a piece of rock, I'll continue living my existence as a human being. I agree with what Darth said in the first reply, this is a perfect example of just all out materialism. It's really cute, too, how you act like you've just figured it all out and think we should just live in complete pity for ourselves because we're apparently nothing too special. It's not like we took millions of years to get to where we are through an evolutionary process or that we're sentient beings that have made electronic machines and a mass wireless intercommunication device called the Internet to communicate with each other...oh, wait.

Mirman also put it in good terms: If you're alive and fully conscious of the world around you, then you can interpret life anyway you want. Obviously your interpretation is that you're just a piece of rock. Ok then, go hide under a bridge if that's the case, obviously that's where you must belong. Yes, at its core, life is a simple chemical reaction, but that's if you get into the nitty gritty details. Life is more than what the nitty gritty details present to us. Life is experiencing a lot of different things while we're in a conscious state.


what lol, sorry I didn't mean to offend you?
It's just that before that I had never thought about it before and then it suddenly made sense to me.
I'm not saying you are less if you think differently.
And I never said life isn't about experience, I actually aggree with that.
Sooo sorry? Also, that isn't even debate, what you said just sounds mean.
go hide under a bridge if that's the case, obviously that's where you must belong.

Also,
you can interpret life anyway you want
Life is more than what the nitty gritty details present to us. Life is experiencing a lot of different things while we're in a conscious state.

*Is your interpetation, right?

And I never said I "act like you've just figured it all out and think we should just live in complete pity for ourselves "
That's just a really subjective and coloured interpetation of what I think is an interesting debate.
I do it because it interests me. I want to hear other people's opinions on things, if I didn't I wouldn't place it in ROTW and read each one of them.
Appearently, you do not like what you read. Then don't respond like that.
So, I am sorry that in my original post I put it so bluntly. It's just that that's what i had been thinking about all day and I find it a very interesting thought.

[darthearth]

But then again you get the problem, of when there would be a god we don't know why and how it is there.
The fact that it is outside our universe doesn't mean that god would need no cause whatsoever.
The problem is that god is defined as something like a person; a being.
This is a huge problem, because:

Let's say some crazy theory I heard of; our universe is like a 4d ball, floating around in an infinite space with other 4d balls, and it used to be empty untill it collided with another and mass and energy from the other universe entered ours.
This would explain how a big bang started: and you don't have to explain how mass got into the 4d ball unvierse anyway, because it is infinite in time and space.
We know our universe is finite, but if the 4d balls universe is infinite, you kind of solve the problem.

*this is all just an example*

But the problem with god: god is described as a being or almost a person that is concious.
The fact that it is a being making descicions to create a universe must mean that it somehow came to make the decision to do whatever it did for this universe; whether it is creating it or stablizing laws of nature.
If it made the decision to do this, it must have not made the decision to do this before and after that.
Meaning that it is not infinite and needs an explanation.

All you are talking about here is the problem of infinite regression. This is a valid concern. The end of it is that the original cause as far as the logical reasoning of our universe goes must be necessarily existent. Now, in fact we cannot understand, due to infinite regression, how such a necessarily existent can produce contingency (cause something) without this necessarily existent being subject to the issue of infinite regression (this parallels your "decision now, not before or after" comment). The result is that the original cause must be transcendent, our universe's logic and reasoning does not necessarily apply in something that is transcendent of the universe and is thus inscrutable. Basically, we are unable to understand it. The universe itself, since it is nothing more than a sequence of observable events, cannot be treated in the same way (necessarily existent and inscrutable).

The problem of "where did God come from" is taken care of in the fact that if there was a God, this God must be transcendent to our universe where our normal logical reasoning does not necessarily apply. I wish you could understand my Transcendent cause of the Universe thread (linked to before), all of this is discussed completely there.

[Miserabilia]

All you are talking about here is the problem of infinite regression. This is a valid concern. The end of it is that the original cause as far as the logical reasoning of our universe goes must be necessarily existent. Now, in fact we cannot understand, due to infinite regression, how such a necessarily existent can produce contingency (cause something) without this necessarily existent being subject to the issue of infinite regression (this parallels your "decision now, not before or after" comment). The result is that the original cause must be transcendent, our universe's logic and reasoning does not necessarily apply in something that is transcendent of the universe and is thus inscrutable. Basically, we are unable to understand it. The universe itself, since it is nothing more than a sequence of observable events, cannot be treated in the same way (necessarily existent and inscrutable).

The problem of "where did God come from" is taken care of in the fact that if there was a God, this God must be transcendent to our universe where our normal logical reasoning does not necessarily apply. I wish you could understand my Transcendent cause of the Universe thread (linked to before), all of this is discussed completely there.

I have been to that thread, but wouldn't the fact that god is a being that does things and "makes decisions" mean that it in fact does work like in our universe? Because in order for that god to make decisions, it made that decision at a certain point. Meaning that there must have been something that allowed it to make that decicion; like an inspiration.
There must have still been a reason for the god to do this.

[darthearth]

I have been to that thread, but wouldn't the fact that god is a being that does things and "makes decisions" mean that it in fact does work like in our universe? Because in order for that god to make decisions, it made that decision at a certain point. Meaning that there must have been something that allowed it to make that decicion; like an inspiration.
There must have still been a reason for the god to do this.

Yes, and at the same time it still needs to be transcendent, this is precisely the reason I am a panentheist, God encompasses this entire Universe and extends beyond it.

[Miserabilia]

Yes, and at the same time it still needs to be transcendent, this is precisely the reason I am a panentheist, God encompasses this entire Universe and extends beyond it.

?
Well at the same time it must have been influenced by something else, which caused him/her to make the decision.
So god can then not be an infinity beyond this universe with nothing else, even if the god doesn't need a cause, the act for the god to make a unvierse still needs a cause.

[darthearth]

?
Well at the same time it must have been influenced by something else, which caused him/her to make the decision.
So god can then not be an infinity beyond this universe with nothing else, even if the god doesn't need a cause, the act for the god to make a unvierse still needs a cause.

Not exactly, you are applying this universe's logical reasoning to something that is transcendent, which is invalid. The original cause of God's decision would have come from the transcendent part of God, the part beyond this universe's logical reasoning.

[Miserabilia]

Not exactly, you are applying this universe's logical reasoning to something that is transcendent, which is invalid. The original cause of God's decision would have come from the transcendent part of God, the part beyond this universe's logical reasoning.

So if you are admitting that the decision for the creation of the universe could come out of nowhere, why not just the universe itself? Aren't you just adding another step?

[darthearth]

So if you are admitting that the decision for the creation of the universe could come out of nowhere, why not just the universe itself? Aren't you just adding another step?

I'm not saying it comes out of nowhere, I'm saying it comes out of the transcendent, just like the universe itself does. They both do come from the same entity. And if one pursues the idea that the transcendent is a panentheistic God that created the universe purposefully, it follows that a decision would come out before the universe, which implies that in the beginning (of our universe) there was some type of mind and after that mind came the physical universe. Lurching further into speculation it may be that this mind is conscious and that the physical universe was created within it, which would imply there is an all pervading consciousness to the universe, ourselves being one of the best manifestations of this. Seems to work, doesn't it.

And I end up a Druid! :eek:

[Miserabilia]

I'm not saying it comes out of nowhere, I'm saying it comes out of the transcendent, just like the universe itself does. They both do come from the same entity. And if one pursues the idea that the transcendent is a panentheistic God that created the universe purposefully, it follows that a decision would come out before the universe, which implies that in the beginning (of our universe) there was some type of mind and after that mind came the physical universe. Lurching further into speculation it may be that this mind is conscious and that the physical universe was created within it, which would imply there is an all pervading consciousness to the universe, ourselves being one of the best manifestations of this. Seems to work, doesn't it.

And I end up a Druid! :eek:


druid? what? xD
Anyway, first of all let me compliment you on your logical approach on religion, I really like that. (Bleid also)
But anyway.
What I don't understand:

Situation A: Let's say god is infinite transcendent etc.
God creates the universe by creating the big bang and natural laws.
The idea for this is spontanious, and comes our of nowhere, in the mind of the concious god.
This would mean it is possible for something to come out of nothing; spontatnious existence.

Situation B: Let's say god is infinite transcendent etc.
God creates the universe by creating the big bang and natural laws.
The idea for this is not spontanious and comes from the mind of god.
This means that god must know something, because if god were to know nothing he could not create the universe. This means there must have been something else then god.

-
In situation A, the idea for the universe comes spontanious; so the god isn't needed anymore, since the universe itself would be created enteriely out of an idea, the god isn't needed anymore. So the universe is spontaniously started.

In situation B, there must have been a resource for the idea; then sure, god is a concious being, but in order for the idea of the universe (and therefore the universe) can come into existence, there must be something to create this idea. Saying god created it is not enough, since "God'" is then, well, empty; unless god exists in another universe where other things exist besides him/her, the idea cannot be created instantly; if it is, situation A occurs.

So, please correct me if I'm wrong (and do it like you would correct a child in kind of easier words like I use in my posts because my english vocabulary isn't really amazing, lol sorry)
but wouldn't situation A or B have to occur, even is god is transcendent?
Or is there a third situation?

:)

[Bleid]

But then again you get the problem, of when there would be a god we don't know why and how it is there.
The fact that it is outside our universe doesn't mean that god would need no cause whatsoever.

But this isn't exactly a problem. You keep trying to apply laws of reasoning and the understanding of how things work within our universe to entities that are not within our universe.

The problem is that god is defined as something like a person; a being.
This is a huge problem, because:

It isn't a problem, because we aren't certain that, even if God is a being, that it'll have any of the same restrictions on its being that we do, because a God would thusly be something that was outside of our universe.

Let's say some crazy theory I heard of; our universe is like a 4d ball, floating around in an infinite space with other 4d balls, and it used to be empty untill it collided with another and mass and energy from the other universe entered ours.
This would explain how a big bang started: and you don't have to explain how mass got into the 4d ball unvierse anyway, because it is infinite in time and space.
We know our universe is finite, but if the 4d balls universe is infinite, you kind of solve the problem.

*this is all just an example*

But the problem with god: god is described as a being or almost a person that is concious.
The fact that it is a being making descicions to create a universe must mean that it somehow came to make the decision to do whatever it did for this universe; whether it is creating it or stablizing laws of nature.
If it made the decision to do this, it must have not made the decision to do this before and after that.
Meaning that it is not infinite and needs an explanation.

Again, not necessarily, because this would be imposing the reasoning that we learn of how our universe works. We can't do that so hastily. Our reasoning only works necessarily within the Domain of Discourse that is our universe. If we start speaking of things outside of that, we cannot conclude about those states of affairs with any hope of accuracy.

Even the most basic truths wouldn't necessarily hold, such as the Law of Identity.

[Miserabilia]

But this isn't exactly a problem. You keep trying to apply laws of reasoning and the understanding of how things work within our universe to entities that are not within our universe.



It isn't a problem, because we aren't certain that, even if God is a being, that it'll have any of the same restrictions on its being that we do, because a God would thusly be something that was outside of our universe.



Again, not necessarily, because this would be imposing the reasoning that we learn of how our universe works. We can't do that so hastily. Our reasoning only works necessarily within the Domain of Discourse that is our universe. If we start speaking of things outside of that, we cannot conclude about those states of affairs with any hope of accuracy.

Even the most basic truths wouldn't necessarily hold, such as the Law of Identity.

I suggest you read my earlier post. (response to darth earth)

[Bleid]

I suggest you read my earlier post. (response to darth earth)

I did read it, and everything still stands. Even to say it is spontaneous is reaching very much too far. Can't conclude so hastily about the transcendent.

[Miserabilia]

I did read it, and everything still stands. Even to say it is spontaneous is reaching very much too far. Can't conclude so hastily about the transcendent.

That's not really much of a response tho.

1: Do you or do you not aggree that either situation A or B has to occur, in order for a universe too exist by the creation of a god.

2: If not, what exactly is wrong with either A or B and name a third situation that fixes this problem.

[Bleid]

That's not really much of a response tho.

1: Do you or do you not aggree that either situation A or B has to occur, in order for a universe too exist by the creation of a god.

2: If not, what exactly is wrong with either A or B and name a third situation that fixes this problem.

The response was already given, is why.

The point is that you're using our reasoning, that only has its Domain within our universe to reason about things that are transcendent (not within our universe). This is the flaw.

Problem with #1: This is a dichotomy that is only applicable to states of affairs within our universe.

You do not know for certain whether or not it's even possible for (either A or B) to be the case outside of our universe, because the disjunction (a statement with "or" in it) is only a model for a state of reasoning within our universe.

There is no model for an "or" statement for any Domain that is outside of our universe. So, I do not agree with #1.

#2 is based on #1, and uses the idea that false dichotomies exist, which are ALSO not known to be present outside of our universe. So, #2 is also flawed for the same reason of a mismatched Domain of Discourse.

[darthearth]

druid? what? xD
Anyway, first of all let me compliment you on your logical approach on religion, I really like that. (Bleid also)


Although Druidry doesn't really have a "belief list" one must subscribe to, the idea of everything in nature and cosmos as being of the divine essence and permeated with consciousness seems to be pretty foundational, nature is sacred. Thank you for acknowledging that there can be a logical approach to religion. Too many times atheists have a tendency to say it is irrational, but this only reveals their ignorance, it can be quite rational.

Situation A: .....
The idea for this is spontanious, and comes our of nowhere, in the mind of the concious god.
This would mean it is possible for something to come out of nothing; spontatnious existence.

Situation B: ......
The idea for this is not spontanious and comes from the mind of god.
This means that god must know something, because if god were to know nothing he could not create the universe. This means there must have been something else then god.


I understand what you are saying, but the idea of a transcendent is that it is completely unknown, it can't be compared to us and how we think and it cannot be thought of as to exist in the same environment of reason as we do. When you say a spontaneous thought of a transcendent must have come from nothing, it is not valid, this is because we can't speak of things like "spontaneous" or even "nothingness" when referencing the transcendent, these concepts may not even exist in its state of being. Also, the idea that knowledge the transcendent has is separate from the transcendent's being is not necessarily the case, these things may make sense if you were talking about an entity like us, if you said these same things about us they may be valid, but not when speaking of something unknown like the transcendent.

This quote from Bleid is definitely applicable here, it was responding to my use of our logical reasoning to the transcendent cause I was attempting to argue for:

.............

Simply because the argument for a transcendent cause being there is valid does not mean that your conclusions about the requirements of this transcendent cause are also validly derived.

.......

In summary:

We have no reason to believe that any of our fundamental laws of reasoning hold true when examining something that transcends our reality, such as:

Law of identity: x is the same as itself.
Law of non-contradiction: it is not the case that ((x is the case) and (x is not the case)) at once in the same respect.
Law of excluded middle: x is either the case or it isn't the case.

Among many other laws and principles of reasoning that we take for granted.

We cannot conclude about any attributes of a transcendent cause, because we are not certain of its exact nature, by definition of transcendent.

We do not even know if any of our faculties of reasoning will still hold true when scrutinizing the characteristics of such a cause.

Like you, this was actually a new idea to me, I was applying the logical reasoning of our reality to the transcendent cause of the universe and Bleid (who I guess has studied proper logic) pointed out that I was improperly extending our logical reasoning to a transcendent, which is not valid. In fact it turned out to be an argument for panentheism specifically (which I already believed in). Basically when talking about the transcendent all of our logical probing is not necessarily valid since the transcendent is defined to be unknowable. Seems like a cop-out, but it is actually logically correct. In fact, recall that the reason why the original cause of the universe must be transcendent is precisely because our logic fails to explain it due to infinite regression problems.

So your arguments made sense in our sphere of logic here in this universe, but extending them to the transcendent is invalid because it exists in a reality that is not necessarily similar to ours. The "nothing" you speak of could actually be another part of the transcendent and the knowledge you speak of could also just be another part of the transcendent. This provides a possible third case to the two you mentioned.

[Miserabilia]

The response was already given, is why.

The point is that you're using our reasoning, that only has its Domain within our universe to reason about things that are transcendent (not within our universe). This is the flaw.

Problem with #1: This is a dichotomy that is only applicable to states of affairs within our universe.

You do not know for certain whether or not it's even possible for (either A or B) to be the case outside of our universe, because the disjunction (a statement with "or" in it) is only a model for a state of reasoning within our universe.

There is no model for an "or" statement for any Domain that is outside of our universe. So, I do not agree with #1.

#2 is based on #1, and uses the idea that false dichotomies exist, which are ALSO not known to be present outside of our universe. So, #2 is also flawed for the same reason of a mismatched Domain of Discourse.

Although Druidry doesn't really have a "belief list" one must subscribe to, the idea of everything in nature and cosmos as being of the divine essence and permeated with consciousness seems to be pretty foundational, nature is sacred. Thank you for acknowledging that there can be a logical approach to religion. Too many times atheists have a tendency to say it is irrational, but this only reveals their ignorance, it can be quite rational.



I understand what you are saying, but the idea of a transcendent is that it is completely unknown, it can't be compared to us and how we think and it cannot be thought of as to exist in the same environment of reason as we do. When you say a spontaneous thought of a transcendent must have come from nothing, it is not valid, this is because we can't speak of things like "spontaneous" or even "nothingness" when referencing the transcendent, these concepts may not even exist in its state of being. Also, the idea that knowledge the transcendent has is separate from the transcendent's being is not necessarily the case, these things may make sense if you were talking about an entity like us, if you said these same things about us they may be valid, but not when speaking of something unknown like the transcendent.

This quote from Bleid is definitely applicable here, it was responding to my use of our logical reasoning to the transcendent cause I was attempting to argue for:



Like you, this was actually a new idea to me, I was applying the logical reasoning of our reality to the transcendent cause of the universe and Bleid (who I guess has studied proper logic) pointed out that I was improperly extended our logical reasoning to a transcendent, which is not valid. In fact it turned out to be an argument for panentheism specifically (which I already believed in). Basically when talking about the transcendent all of our logical probing is not necessarily valid since the transcendent is defined to be unknowable. Seems like a cop-out, but it is actually logically correct. In fact, recall that the reason why the original cause of the universe must be transcendent is precisely because our logic fails to explain it do to infinite regression problems.

So your arguments made sense in our sphere of logic here in this universe, but extending them to the transcendent is invalid because it exists in a reality that is not necessarily similar to ours. The "nothing" you speak of could actually be another part of the transcendent and the knowledge you speak of could also just be another part of the transcendent. This provides a possible third case to the two you mentioned.

The point is that you're using our reasoning, that only has its Domain within our universe to reason about things that are transcendent (not within our universe). This is the flaw.

Exactly. It is a flaw. It is a flaw that is created with the idea that a god creates the universe. That's kind of the point. The whole concept of the nescecity of the god works by logic of our universe, not by the transcendent.
Since the transcendent doesn't work by the rules of our universe, our universe can still come to existence without needing a god to create it.

If the universe was created by god, then that happened in the transcendent; the rules of our logic only work in our universe, and only started when our universe came into existence.
But if god created the universe, this happened in the transcendent, and the fact that he/she did would mean that even in the transcendent, this logic continues.
Cause (creation of the universe) and effect (existence of the universe).

I am not making up using our own universes logic in the transcendent, the fact that a god would create the universe shows that that logic works even in the transcendent, (logic of cause and effect), meaning you actually would need a source for your god.
If the god didn't need a source, the universe doesn't either, and the god can be ruled out.

in short:

The act of god creating the universe (if that was the case) works by cause and effect, and therefore by logic of our own universe.
That would bring our own logic into the transcendent, causing infinite regression for that god.

So saying that god is transcendent doesn't fix the problem, since the act of creating the universe is an effect by a cause, causing infinite regression.

[darthearth]

...............

in short:

The act of god creating the universe (if that was the case) works by cause and effect, and therefore by logic of our own universe.
That would bring our own logic into the transcendent, causing infinite regression for that god.

So saying that god is transcendent doesn't fix the problem, since the act of creating the universe is an effect by a cause, causing infinite regression.

We have already covered this exact thing in my Transcendent cause of the Universe thread. In that thread I postulated that this universe is a part of its own cause, thus extending the Domain of Discourse. See Bleid's comment #32 of that thread and the comments immediately before. It's the same thing you are getting at here. That's why I said that it turned out to be an argument for panentheism. To argue that God makes a decision to create the universe seems to necessitate panentheism, such that our logic may exist somewhat in the transcendent, our universe thus being a wholistic reference to the transcendent, some subset of it.

(Your argument is originally why I said that the transcendent cause needs to be inscrutable, I said this is necessary to account for the infinite regression problem you mentioned, Bleid improved my argument later.)

http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=197693

[Bleid]

Exactly. It is a flaw. It is a flaw that is created with the idea that a god creates the universe. That's kind of the point. The whole concept of the nescecity of the god works by logic of our universe, not by the transcendent.
Since the transcendent doesn't work by the rules of our universe, our universe can still come to existence without needing a god to create it.

If the universe was created by god, then that happened in the transcendent; the rules of our logic only work in our universe, and only started when our universe came into existence.
But if god created the universe, this happened in the transcendent, and the fact that he/she did would mean that even in the transcendent, this logic continues.
Cause (creation of the universe) and effect (existence of the universe).

I am not making up using our own universes logic in the transcendent, the fact that a god would create the universe shows that that logic works even in the transcendent, (logic of cause and effect), meaning you actually would need a source for your god.
If the god didn't need a source, the universe doesn't either, and the god can be ruled out.

in short:

The act of god creating the universe (if that was the case) works by cause and effect, and therefore by logic of our own universe.
That would bring our own logic into the transcendent, causing infinite regression for that god.

So saying that god is transcendent doesn't fix the problem, since the act of creating the universe is an effect by a cause, causing infinite regression.

I wrote a detailed response to each part, but then I deleted it because it all comes down to the same circular reasoning issue in each part of what you said here.

You can't claim that it's cause and effect and therefore our same logic exists there, because that's begging the question.

Look at it like this, and try to notice why it's begging the question:

Domain we exist and observe:
Cause and effect appears to exist here.

Transcendent Domain:
Cause and effect is not known to exist here.

Now, your idea of cause and effect is not known to apply in the Transcendent Domain, so all your claims of it being there must be rooted in your understanding of the Domain we exist in and observe.

This is a problem, because you can only conclude about states of affairs in the Domain we exist in and observe while using the logic from the Domain we exist in and observe.

We cannot justifiably conclude about states of affairs in the Transcendent Domain while using logic that is entirely rooted in the Domain we exist in and observe.

That's like trying to say that Superman's powers are real and not fictional in our universe because his powers are real in the domain of the comic books.

You're trying to use logic of the first Domain to conclude about how the second Domain must work. This is assuming that our logic already works in the second Domain, but the problem is, you're trying to conclude that our logic works in the second Domain. So, you can't use the assumption that it works there in order to demonstrate that.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

[Miserabilia]

I wrote a detailed response to each part, but then I deleted it because it all comes down to the same circular reasoning issue in each part of what you said here.

You can't claim that it's cause and effect and therefore our same logic exists there, because that's begging the question.

Look at it like this, and try to notice why it's begging the question:

Domain we exist and observe:
Cause and effect appears to exist here.

Transcendent Domain:
Cause and effect is not known to exist here.

Now, your idea of cause and effect is not known to apply in the Transcendent Domain, so all your claims of it being there must be rooted in your understanding of the Domain we exist in and observe.

This is a problem, because you can only conclude about states of affairs in the Domain we exist in and observe while using the logic from the Domain we exist in and observe.

We cannot justifiably conclude about states of affairs in the Transcendent Domain while using logic that is entirely rooted in the Domain we exist in and observe.

That's like trying to say that Superman's powers are real and not fictional in our universe because his powers are real in the domain of the comic books.

You're trying to use logic of the first Domain to conclude about how the second Domain must work. This is assuming that our logic already works in the second Domain, but the problem is, you're trying to conclude that our logic works in the second Domain. So, you can't use the assumption that it works there in order to demonstrate that.

Do you see the circular reasoning?

Now, your idea of cause and effect is not known to apply in the Transcendent Domain, so all your claims of it being there must be rooted in your understanding of the Domain we exist in and observe.


Omg I love this I am learning so much new stuff! :)

I find this very interesting to think about: (just made this to clear up what I mean with my weird grammar :p )

Okay this all depends on a few things about the transcendent domain:
*when I say big bang I just mean the moment the universe started*


SITUATION 1:

transcendent domain-----------



SITUATION 2:

transcendent domain--------[God creates-> Big Bang-> Our Universe]


SITUATION 3:

transcendent domain---------Big Bang-> [Our Universe]



SITUATION 4:

transcendent domain--------God creates->Big Bang->[Our Universe]



SITUATION 5:

transcendent domain--------God creates -> [Big Bang-> Our Universe]



~~~~~~~~


when I use the [ ... ] I mean that it is in a seperate domain.

[B]situation 1;
If the start of our universe was in our own domain, it would have to work by the rules of the domain, which requires cause and effect. Since there is no cause beyond the big bang in this situation, this could not happen.


situation 2;
In here god creates the start of the universe, but in this domain, which would require a cause for god, so infinite regression.


situation 3;
This is what I like to think.
The start of the universe occurs in the transcendent; so it doesn't need a cause for what we know.
The start of the universe triggers the universe and it's rules, and from there on a seperate domain with rules.


situation 4;
Same as 3, but here god creates the start of the universe in the transcendent... Meaning that you could bring the chart down to this:

--------God creates -> something is created--------

If that is all we know of the transcendent, you can not provide an answer for the origin of that god; if this is all we know of the transcendent, either God must have been created by another God, or the Universe isn't created by god at all.


Situation 5;
God creates a domain, within it the start of the universe followed by,,, the universe...
This would make the chart:

------- God Creates-> [Domain]-----------------

a.k.a

--------[God Creates]-> [Something]-----------


And the same happens as in situation 4.



------------------------------------

Please tell me what you think of these.

[darthearth]

........

If that is all we know of the transcendent, you can not provide an answer for the origin of that god; if this is all we know of the transcendent, either God must have been created by another God, or the Universe isn't created by god at all.[/I]




God doesn't have to be created by another God, rather the part of God (God being the transcendent itself) that makes a decision to create the universe is that extension of our Domain of Discourse into the transcendent, which can be done if our Universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent (a part of the transcendent, or part of its own cause).

[Miserabilia]

God doesn't have to be created by another God, rather the part of God (God being the transcendent itself) that makes a decision to create the universe is that extension of our Domain of Discourse into the transcendent, which can be done if our Universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent (a part of the transcendent, or part of its own cause).

God doesn't have to be created by another God, rather the part of God (God being the transcendent itself) that makes a decision to create the universe is that extension of our Domain of Discourse into the transcendent, which can be done if our Universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent (a part of the transcendent, or part of its own cause).

Please explain,
or put it in a thingy like I tried to do (little graph situation thingy) because I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

My logic is that the transcendent domain doesn't work by the logic of our universe (which is in and started in the transcendent domain) so our universe doesn't need a cause, it can come into existence without a cause.

Saying our universe needs a cause (a god in this case) is actually applying our logic into the transcendent, no?

Is this what you mean with what you said?

"the part of God (God being the transcendent itself) that makes a decision to create the universe is that extension of our Domain of Discourse into the transcendent, which can be done if our Universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent (a part of the transcendent, or part of its own cause)"



---transcendent domain=god--------->[decision to create->Big Bang]


Because if so, if the decision to create the universe is an extension of our domain, you will again get down to this graph:



--transcendent domain----god->[seperate domain]

a.k.a

transcendent domain----cause->[effect]

[jonybroyles]

it's a mystery.

[Miserabilia]

it's a mystery.

Not really.
It's more like a really complex puzzle

[Bleid]

I like your assessment of the previous ones.

situation 3;
This is what I like to think.
The start of the universe occurs in the transcendent; so it doesn't need a cause for what we know.
The start of the universe triggers the universe and it's rules, and from there on a seperate domain with rules.

Yes; and more specifically, it isn't at all clear that the concept of cause and effect would even have a meaning in the transcendent.

There are some metalogic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic)-based metaphysical theories regarding the transcendent, but they're very abstract and can be difficult to describe without models and formalism. As well, they're not provable, since metalogic also knowingly works only within our universe and thus untrustworthy to deal with anything outside of that Domain.

The most favorable of them is rooted in our traditional understanding of how reasoning works - it's based on the Principle of Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). I could explain the way it uses the principle in detail if you have any interest.


situation 4;
Same as 3, but here god creates the start of the universe in the transcendent... Meaning that you could bring the chart down to this:

--------God creates -> something is created--------

If that is all we know of the transcendent, you can not provide an answer for the origin of that god; if this is all we know of the transcendent, either God must have been created by another God, or the Universe isn't created by god at all.

Well, this is difficult to conclude, too.

Because it assumes consistency throughout, and it also assumes that the concept of 'creation' would have the same meaning in the transcendent that it does in the world we know and experience.

What I mean is - it's entirely possible that reasoning doesn't apply abstractly, like we observe it in this world.

For example, if I argue:

1. If A then B.
2. A.
_______
3. Therefore, B.

This argument form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens) is always valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_validity), regardless of A and B. However, it could be more dynamic in the transcendent even if we grant that God created the start of the universe.

Since, it could be that for God's existence there needs no reason nor origination nor justification nor even explanation.

(Also note that the concept of something existing is also undefined for the transcendent)

However, the start of the universe we inhabit, for whatever reason, might require a God figure in order to begin.

And of course there's that issue that the idea of creation is possibly a nonsensical concept if we're speaking of states of affairs in the transcendent.
Just like how the idea of a contradiction (X is the case and X is not the case) existing in the Domain that we inhabit is a nonsensical concept.

Thus why we have things like Reductio Ad Absurdum (http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/#H2) (Proof by Contradiction).

Please tell me what you think of these.

Yes, of course.

I liked them. Just a few little parts here and there that might lead us astray if we consider them superficially - which I hopefully noted appropriately.

[Miserabilia]

I like your assessment of the previous ones.



Yes; and more specifically, it isn't at all clear that the concept of cause and effect would even have a meaning in the transcendent.

There are some metalogic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalogic)-based metaphysical theories regarding the transcendent, but they're very abstract and can be difficult to describe without models and formalism. As well, they're not provable, since metalogic also knowingly works only within our universe and thus untrustworthy to deal with anything outside of that Domain.

The most favorable of them is rooted in our traditional understanding of how reasoning works - it's based on the Principle of Explosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). I could explain the way it uses the principle in detail if you have any interest.




Well, this is difficult to conclude, too.

Because it assumes consistency throughout, and it also assumes that the concept of 'creation' would have the same meaning in the transcendent that it does in the world we know and experience.

What I mean is - it's entirely possible that reasoning doesn't apply abstractly, like we observe it in this world.

For example, if I argue:

1. If A then B.
2. A.
_______
3. Therefore, B.

This argument form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens) is always valid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_validity), regardless of A and B. However, it could be more dynamic in the transcendent even if we grant that God created the start of the universe.

Since, it could be that for God's existence there needs no reason nor origination nor justification nor even explanation.

(Also note that the concept of something existing is also undefined for the transcendent)

However, the start of the universe we inhabit, for whatever reason, might require a God figure in order to begin.

And of course there's that issue that the idea of creation is possibly a nonsensical concept if we're speaking of states of affairs in the transcendent.
Just like how the idea of a contradiction (X is the case and X is not the case) existing in the Domain that we inhabit is a nonsensical concept.

Thus why we have things like Reductio Ad Absurdum (http://www.iep.utm.edu/reductio/#H2) (Proof by Contradiction).



Yes, of course.

I liked them. Just a few little parts here and there that might lead us astray if we consider them superficially - which I hopefully noted appropriately.

What I mean is - it's entirely possible that reasoning doesn't apply abstractly, like we observe it in this world.


Well, saying it may not work that way, just because it is in the transcendent, doesn't really work either, since we don't know anything for sure about this uinverse either.
We observe rules and have to assume that's how the world works.
So even if you only know one event in the transcendent (A god-being that exists creating something) we have to base from that event the rules of the transcendent.

[darthearth]

Please explain,
or put it in a thingy like I tried to do (little graph situation thingy) because I don't really understand what you are trying to say.

My logic is that the transcendent domain doesn't work by the logic of our universe (which is in and started in the transcendent domain) so our universe doesn't need a cause, it can come into existence without a cause.

Saying our universe needs a cause (a god in this case) is actually applying our logic into the transcendent, no?

Is this what you mean with what you said?

"the part of God (God being the transcendent itself) that makes a decision to create the universe is that extension of our Domain of Discourse into the transcendent, which can be done if our Universe is a wholistic reference to the transcendent (a part of the transcendent, or part of its own cause)"



---transcendent domain=god--------->[decision to create->Big Bang]


Because if so, if the decision to create the universe is an extension of our domain, you will again get down to this graph:



--transcendent domain----god->[seperate domain]

a.k.a

transcendent domain----cause->[effect]


Does this clarify?

[---transcendent domain=God--------->[God->decision to create->Big Bang]]

[Miserabilia]

Does this clarify?

[---transcendent domain=God--------->[God->decision to create->Big Bang]]

First of all you have to remember that Big Bang is always;
Big Bang->[Our Universe]
But okay let's leave that out for now to keep it simple and so it fits on one line lol.


So anyways... that's two times god. If you mean two different types or shapes or whatevers, this counts (it would still be weird for one transcendent god to create a non transcendent god tho), but since it's just says god you can bring it down to either:

A:
----transcendent domain----->[God->decision to create->Big Bang]


or


B:
----God=transcendent----->[decision to create->Big Bang]



If A, then;

The domain of God creating the big bang comes out of the transcendent... without a cause, which works fine concidering the transcendent doesn't need that.

Then within that domain, there is: God->decision to create->Big Bang

That gives 2 causes and two effects, but the "God" (which is in this domain the first cause) doesn't need a cause before it, since it's the start of a seperate domain.

This is the logic you are applying with this, yes?
It seems to make sense, aswell.

But now, I can bring the graph down to this;

---transcendent domain------>[Any cause-> series of cause and effect]

which is basicly what you applied.
So the question is; do you even need a god? No, not really.
Since;

--transcendent domain------>

works by the same model as -
---God=transcendent)----->[decision to create->Big Bang]

, the adding of a god only increases the complexity of the problem, (adding a new being and a new domain),
and the simplest answer is often the truth, the god isn't needed at all.

Does this mean it is completely impossible for a god in the transcendent to create a seperate domain?

No, the new way you formulated it suggested it may be possible.

But the problem is that it uses the same model as model #1 and #3 from my earlier post (which are basicly the same thing because the big bang is a point exactly between the two domains),
only more complicated.

So in short it makes a deity as transcendent cause more plausible but it is still inferior to solution to situation #3.

----------------------------------------------------------

Now,
if B;

(----God=transcendent----->[decision to create->Big Bang])

The big bang (a.k.a Big Bang->[Our Universe] or [Big Bang->Our Universe]
now has a non-transcendal cause; the decision and act of creating it.
This seems ingenius, because the decision can then come from a transcendal god.

but ofcourse, ( :P ) there is a problem here aswell.
Because the definition of a decision is that it is made by a being, and the decision of god is that well... he/she is sort of a being.

So you can bring this down to:


------Something (Some transcendal being) -> [creates->something else]


which becomes



------Cause------------[effect-cause* -> effect]

*New cause that is also an effect of the previous cause (Not official term but just logic)

Which becomes


--------Cause------[effect]

Bringing the same problem as before, because even tho "effect" is in a seperate domain,
it it still within the transcendent domain an effect of the "Cause"!
Bringing cause-effect logic to the transcendal, requiring a cause for "Cause" and causing infinite regression.


[B]If you think there is something wrong in this post please quote it seperatly and point it out

[darthearth]

....the adding of a god only increases the complexity of the problem, (adding a new being and a new domain),
and the simplest answer is often the truth, the god isn't needed at all.

Does this mean it is completely impossible for a god in the transcendent to create a seperate domain?

No, the new way you formulated it suggested it may be possible.

But the problem is that it uses the same model as model #1 and #3 from my earlier post (which are basicly the same thing because the big bang is a point exactly between the two domains),
only more complicated.

So in short it makes a deity as transcendent cause more plausible but it is still inferior to solution to situation #3.


It could be the case that a God is required since things are rooted in something incomprehensible like the transcendent cause, therefore you have no justification to say including God is inferior. Since things are rooted in an unknown, Occam's razor in no way can be applied here (and atheists demonstrate gross ignorance/foolishness in an arrogant way all the time on this point).

Bringing the same problem as before, because even tho "effect" is in a seperate domain,
it it still within the transcendent domain an effect of the "Cause"!
Bringing cause-effect logic to the transcendal, requiring a cause for "Cause" and causing infinite regression.


Not necessarily, since the transcendent is defined to be inscrutable (incomprehensible, not necessarily following our laws of logic), saying that infinite regression is a problem for the transcendent is unjustified. This is a point made multiple times on this thread already.

In short, God may very well be the transcendent cause and it is far from irrational to believe in God based on this. Atheists love to falsely claim that belief in God is irrational, when in fact they are thoughtless and ignorant for claiming such.

I struggle to not be completely sickened by their ignorance (as well as their stupid arrogance).

[Bleid]

Well, saying it may not work that way, just because it is in the transcendent, doesn't really work either, since we don't know anything for sure about this uinverse either.
We observe rules and have to assume that's how the world works.
So even if you only know one event in the transcendent (A god-being that exists creating something) we have to base from that event the rules of the transcendent.

It's the only thing that does work. That's the best we can conclude on the subject - that we are utterly clueless about its workings and rules. The transcendent is precisely that which is outside of our observation and experience, and thus, no part of what we know of this world is guaranteed to work there or even be likely to work there, and any time we try to apply our understanding of this world to the transcendent, we are very far from any chance of accuracy or truth in the conclusions we draw.

Also I assume we're aware that the Big Bang is not actually the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory is used as an explanation of what occurred following the origin of the universe - the expansion of the universe from immediately after its beginning and onward. The start of the universe is still not claimed to be scientifically known, and rightly so.

Since, to claim that an occurrence is the origin of the universe in a scientific way, we'd be speaking of it through our scientific observations, but if we do that, we have the issue of cause and effect as well as other physical-world issues. In addition, we can simply ask,

"What is the origin of this state of affairs that brought about the universe and gave rise to the Big Bang?"
(Principle of Sufficient Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason) is applicable within our Domain, but not necessarily for the transcendent)

Thus, it's necessary that there is some transcendent-related justification for why the universe exists, which we very well may never come to know, because the moment we find something that might have brought about our universe then it's in our observation and there would still need to be a transcendent reason beyond that (Principle of Sufficient Reason in our Domain) for why that state of affairs that we observe was even possible in the first place.

[Miserabilia]

It could be the case that a God is required since things are rooted in something incomprehensible like the transcendent cause, therefore you have no justification to say including God is inferior. Since things are rooted in an unknown, Occam's razor in no way can be applied here (and atheists demonstrate gross ignorance/foolishness in an arrogant way all the time on this point).



Not necessarily, since the transcendent is defined to be inscrutable (incomprehensible, not necessarily following our laws of logic), saying that infinite regression is a problem for the transcendent is unjustified. This is a point made multiple times on this thread already.

In short, God may very well be the transcendent cause and it is far from irrational to believe in God based on this. Atheists love to falsely claim that belief in God is irrational, when in fact they are thoughtless and ignorant for claiming such.

I struggle to not be completely sickened by their ignorance (as well as their stupid arrogance).

It's the only thing that does work. That's the best we can conclude on the subject - that we are utterly clueless about its workings and rules. The transcendent is precisely that which is outside of our observation and experience, and thus, no part of what we know of this world is guaranteed to work there or even be likely to work there, and any time we try to apply our understanding of this world to the transcendent, we are very far from any chance of accuracy or truth in the conclusions we draw.

Also I assume we're aware that the Big Bang is not actually the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory is used as an explanation of what occurred following the origin of the universe - the expansion of the universe from immediately after its beginning and onward. The start of the universe is still not claimed to be scientifically known, and rightly so.

Since, to claim that an occurrence is the origin of the universe in a scientific way, we'd be speaking of it through our scientific observations, but if we do that, we have the issue of cause and effect as well as other physical-world issues. In addition, we can simply ask,

"What is the origin of this state of affairs that brought about the universe and gave rise to the Big Bang?"
(Principle of Sufficient Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason) is applicable within our Domain, but not necessarily for the transcendent)

Thus, it's necessary that there is some transcendent-related justification for why the universe exists, which we very well may never come to know, because the moment we find something that might have brought about our universe then it's in our observation and there would still need to be a transcendent reason beyond that (Principle of Sufficient Reason in our Domain) for why that state of affairs that we observe was even possible in the first place.

It could be the case that a God is required since things are rooted in something incomprehensible like the transcendent cause, therefore you have no justification to say including God is inferior. Since things are rooted in an unknown, Occam's razor in no way can be applied here

You are right, that was my mistake.
Even still, the universe coming into existence without a cause and a god creating it is still just as possible, so I guess neither can be ruled out.

Not necessarily, since the transcendent is defined to be inscrutable (incomprehensible, not necessarily following our laws of logic), saying that infinite regression is a problem for the transcendent is unjustified. This is a point made multiple times on this thread already.

It is defined to be inscrutable because we don't know what's there, and like I said multiple times already :

If god was the cause of the universe (in that model/situation) , then all that we know of the transcendent is that something caused something to happen.
even in another domain,you have to make a prediction based on what you know.
All we know is that there is a cause and effect there. So thereout comes the logical conclusion (even in the transcendent!) that cause and efect rules work there.
It's like in this universe.
We see that pushing a rock may cause it to fall over and push another rock etc. Do we know now for sure cause-and-effect is the ultimate unbreakable rule? No, we can never know.
It's just logical to assume that it is, since we know/oberserve/imagine(in the case of the transcendent) the cause and effect in action.
Saying it won't work that way just because it is the transcendent is silly, because even in the transcendent conclusions can be drawn.
(and atheists demonstrate gross ignorance/foolishness in an arrogant way all the time on this point).
ok?

In short, God may very well be the transcendent cause and it is far from irrational to believe in God based on this. Atheists love to falsely claim that belief in God is irrational, when in fact they are thoughtless and ignorant for claiming such.

I'm not saying it's irrational. I'm saying it's not nescecairy to add another step to the problem (Even if Occam's Razor doesn't work in the transcendent), and I even said it is plausible for a god to be the cause.
Just not the most direct solution.

I struggle to not be completely sickened by their ignorance (as well as their stupid arrogance).

Rage? :eek:
I'm sorry but statisticly there are still more (almost twice as much) people in the united states that beleive in virgin bearth (like you said yourself in a thread) which completely breaks all logic of what we know of the human body and the logic of the world, then the amount of people that are atheist.
Also, not all atheist have to be completely arrogant.
It just depends on the person but also on who they are talking to.

---------------------------

It's the only thing that does work. That's the best we can conclude on the subject - that we are utterly clueless about its workings and rules. The transcendent is precisely that which is outside of our observation and experience, and thus, no part of what we know of this world is guaranteed to work there or even be likely to work there, and any time we try to apply our understanding of this world to the transcendent, we are very far from any chance of accuracy or truth in the conclusions we draw.

See my reply to Darthearth.

Also I assume we're aware that the Big Bang is not actually the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang theory is used as an explanation of what occurred following the origin of the universe - the expansion of the universe from immediately after its beginning and onward. The start of the universe is still not claimed to be scientifically known, and rightly so.

I know, it's not technicaly correct to call the start the Big Bang, but it looks better and it fits on one line, rather then "Exact Start Of Existence Of Our Universe" or something xD

Thus, it's necessary that there is some transcendent-related justification for why the universe exists, which we very well may never come to know, because the moment we find something that might have brought about our universe then it's in our observation and there would still need to be a transcendent reason beyond that (Principle of Sufficient Reason in our Domain) for why that state of affairs that we observe was even possible in the first place.

I know. The transcendent cause being... The start of the universe.
It's hard to explain without using the graph but since the transcendent doesn't have to work with our logic, our universe can come into existence out of the transcendent without a direct cause, the start of the universe being exactly the border between transcendent and our domain.
(The only cause we know that is not also an effect)

[Bleid]

It is defined to be inscrutable because we don't know what's there, and like I said multiple times already :

If god was the cause of the universe (in that model/situation) , then all that we know of the transcendent is that something caused something to happen.
even in another domain,you have to make a prediction based on what you know.
All we know is that there is a cause and effect there. So thereout comes the logical conclusion (even in the transcendent!) that cause and efect rules work there.

It's like in this universe.
We see that pushing a rock may cause it to fall over and push another rock etc. Do we know now for sure cause-and-effect is the ultimate unbreakable rule? No, we can never know.
It's just logical to assume that it is, since we know/oberserve/imagine(in the case of the transcendent) the cause and effect in action.
Saying it won't work that way just because it is the transcendent is silly, because even in the transcendent conclusions can be drawn.

Oh, but it isn't logical to assume this.

The bold part does not give us the underlined part even if the bold part is true.
The reason being - you're still assuming that the transcendent is at all similar to our Domain in the first place.

Let's say God creates the universe (we also do not know for certain if 'creation' is the correct concept to be used in the situation because we are ignorant of the transcendent).

We cannot conclude from this that cause and effect rules apply there, because reasoning can be dynamic.

In fact, something even more confusing comes about.

We cannot conclude that "God created the universe." EVEN IF "God created the universe." is true in the transcendent.

Why? Because even the most fundamental of the inference rules of logic (reiteration) is not known to work in the transcendent.

1. X
_____
2. Therefore, X.

This is still applying reasoning that is only known to work in our own Domain.
As ludicrous as it might seem to conclude that this argument isn't necessarily valid outside of our logic, that's the truth.

And so, even if we grant that the idea of creation holds the same meaning and conceptual understanding in both our Domain and the transcendent, then we still cannot conclude anything.

I'm not saying it's irrational. I'm saying it's not nescecairy to add another step to the problem (Even if Occam's Razor doesn't work in the transcendent), and I even said it is plausible for a god to be the cause.
Just not the most direct solution.

This isn't necessarily known, however. God may very well be the most direct solution - we are not certain.

To say that a God isn't the most direct solution is to say that things can potentially be done without one, which, we simply don't know.

As said before, it may be required that there be a God and we are simply ignorant of the reasoning as to why, or we are ignorant of the requirements on our physical laws. This is not known to us, and so, we cannot say that (without a God) is the most direct solution to the universe's existence. It may be true that there is no other way.

For example:

If A then B then C.

We might simply be seeing the last part (B then C) but it may be absolutely necessary that A is there in the first place to allow B to allow C.

[Miserabilia]

Oh, but it isn't logical to assume this.

The bold part does not give us the underlined part even if the bold part is true.
The reason being - you're still assuming that the transcendent is at all similar to our Domain in the first place.

Let's say God creates the universe (we also do not know for certain if 'creation' is the correct concept to be used in the situation because we are ignorant of the transcendent).

We cannot conclude from this that cause and effect rules apply there, because reasoning can be dynamic.

In fact, something even more confusing comes about.

We cannot conclude that "God created the universe." EVEN IF "God created the universe." is true in the transcendent.

Why? Because even the most fundamental of the inference rules of logic (reiteration) is not known to work in the transcendent.

1. X
_____
2. Therefore, X.

This is still applying reasoning that is only known to work in our own Domain.
As ludicrous as it might seem to conclude that this argument isn't necessarily valid outside of our logic, that's the truth.

And so, even if we grant that the idea of creation holds the same meaning and conceptual understanding in both our Domain and the transcendent, then we still cannot conclude anything.



This isn't necessarily known, however. God may very well be the most direct solution - we are not certain.

To say that a God isn't the most direct solution is to say that things can potentially be done without one, which, we simply don't know.

As said before, it may be required that there be a God and we are simply ignorant of the reasoning as to why, or we are ignorant of the requirements on our physical laws. This is not known to us, and so, we cannot say that (without a God) is the most direct solution to the universe's existence. It may be true that there is no other way.

For example:

If A then B then C.

We might simply be seeing the last part (B then C) but it may be absolutely necessary that A is there in the first place to allow B to allow C.

No no no no I understand what you are saying,
but my point is;
the transcendent is defined as we have no idea how it works.
But we don't know anything about this universe either.
We observe what happens and base rules of it.
We don't know any rules.
That's the point.

We cannot conclude that "God created the universe." EVEN IF "God created the universe." is true in the transcendent.

Why? Because even the most fundamental of the inference rules of logic (reiteration) is not known to work in the transcendent.


Doesn't work.
The trandcendent domain and ours work both simply- as a domain.
One is not more special then the other.

The whole point I am trying to make, is that we don't know what's in the transcendent.
But once we know one thing (God creating the Universe) that means we have to base the rules of it out of that one thing.

"Why? Because even the most fundamental of the inference rules of logic (reiteration) is not known to work in the transcendent."

Both the logic and the rules would exist if a god created a universe.
This is because it is an idea made up by humans (even if it is true, we wouldn't know so yea it's basicly an idea) so it has to follow our logic.

I know the transcendent can work with completely different logic, but qualities of a god and the act of creating something give it rules.
This way of thinking isn't just something that is in our universe, it is what defines one of these domains.
If we can not say this about the transcendent, we can also not say this about our universe.
See what I mean?
It's not like the transcendent is on a different level of domain, it's both a domain.

We might simply be seeing the last part (B then C) but it may be absolutely necessary that A is there in the first place to allow B to allow C.

Yes, and we will (probably?) never know.
THat's why I find it most logical to assume an easier form.
Since the god model of cause of the universe is either infinite reggresive or the same model as a spontanious start, this ABC thing doesn't work.
Even if a cause is absolutely nescecary, the cause may not be a cause at all, since it's not our domain we don't know.

If a god would create something out of something, it would be following our logic, and it would cause infinite regression.
(even if the universe was created out of an idea, doesn't need to be materialistic)

If a god would create something out of nothing, it would not be following our logic,
so you might as well say nothing caused the universe.
It just became.

Saying god created it (even if A may be absolutely necesary to make B -> C) is applying human (us in our domain) logic to a domain we do not know the logic to.
Making a cause for anything is applying our logic.

So if the transcendent domain would work with our logic, this would make sense. But hey, again you get infinite regression.
Conclusion is that our logic cannot work in the transcendent.
Making it impossible to for anything to create our domain.
It has to become out of itself in order to have it's own logic, which is possible in the transcendent.

[inamorata]

I don't believe life is a mystery.

[darthearth]

..............
Making it impossible to for anything to create our domain.
....

This one sentence summarizes the error. Since we know nothing of the transcendent (a realm where reasoning itself may not exist), we cannot say it is impossible for our domain to be created (the same applies to the rest of what you said).

There is the logic in the domain of our Universe and there is UNKNOWN (not even unknown logic, but simply UNKNOWN). That is all. Our logic in the domain of this Universe necessitates a cause for it. This is all we know completely. Our logic ends here. We call this cause a transcendent cause because we know no more. Saying anything about a God in any of this is formally only a speculation, it is a belief. However, it is just as much a rational speculation, and I believe even more rational given other arguments, than leaving all mention of God absent and simply saying that it was some transcendent cause.

As far as why I believe it is most rational to believe that the transcendent is God, I believe John Lennox gives a good introduction:

http://youtu.be/otrqzITuSqE

(**note that I introduced a God making a decision to create the Universe by adding something else to what we know: I set forth an additional postulate that the Universe was to be considered a part of its own cause, thus formally bringing our logical domain into the transcendent, but only in part. This allowed my logical argument for the panentheistic God I believe in. See my Transcendent cause to the Universe thread I've linked to twice now, as well as all my previous posts in this thread. This postulate addresses much of your argument relating to God creating things and how that is reflective of our logical domain.)

[Bleid]

No no no no I understand what you are saying,
but my point is;
the transcendent is defined as we have no idea how it works.
But we don't know anything about this universe either.
We observe what happens and base rules of it.
We don't know any rules.
That's the point.

Doesn't work.
The trandcendent domain and ours work both simply- as a domain.
One is not more special then the other.

The whole point I am trying to make, is that we don't know what's in the transcendent.
But once we know one thing (God creating the Universe) that means we have to base the rules of it out of that one thing.

"Why? Because even the most fundamental of the inference rules of logic (reiteration) is not known to work in the transcendent."

Both the logic and the rules would exist if a god created a universe.
This is because it is an idea made up by humans (even if it is true, we wouldn't know so yea it's basicly an idea) so it has to follow our logic.

Even if we are simply making all knowledge up - based on our made up knowledge, it's still irrational if we are to conclude about something that is beyond the scope of our made up knowledge. It's unavoidable.

So, no. It does not have to follow our logic. That would be to go against our own logic entirely.

It's like if I make up the rule "All decks of cards have only a suit of Hearts."
Even though this is made up, if I am given a deck of playing cards with Spades, Clubs and Diamonds, I'm still going against that rule.

So, regardless of if you consider it to be made up or not - the distinction is between a metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) one and an epistemological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) one.

Still cannot conclude of the transcendent, even if we consider that all we know is made up, because the reasoning still only works for (that which we know of, that we made up.)

As well, I am not claiming now that we did make everything up - I was merely going by what you presented that we know nothing of our universe.

I know the transcendent can work with completely different logic, but qualities of a god and the act of creating something give it rules.
This way of thinking isn't just something that is in our universe, it is what defines one of these domains.
If we can not say this about the transcendent, we can also not say this about our universe.
See what I mean?
It's not like the transcendent is on a different level of domain, it's both a domain.

It's what defines the Domains in the way we understand them through our universe. And again, the first sentence is begging the question, because it's assuming our understanding on things that are outside of it.

Regardless of the approach that's taken, we still cannot conclude about the transcendent. If we do, we are contradicting ourselves, and whether logic is made up entirely and we really have no understanding of even this universe, or it's based on concreteness of the world, it still does not change that something that is inscrutable is inscrutable, and hence, we cannot scrutinize it and be justified in our doing so.

If a god would create something out of something, it would be following our logic, and it would cause infinite regression.
(even if the universe was created out of an idea, doesn't need to be materialistic)

Same problem.

If a god would create something out of nothing, it would not be following our logic,
so you might as well say nothing caused the universe.
It just became.

Not necessarily, because we also do not have a sufficient understanding enough to claim that "it just became." That's still going too far.

Saying god created it (even if A may be absolutely necesary to make B -> C) is applying human (us in our domain) logic to a domain we do not know the logic to.
Making a cause for anything is applying our logic.

Not quite, because we're not applying our logic to a Domain we do not know of. We're applying a potential counter-example that's within our Domain to demonstrate that even if the transcendent followed our reasoning exactly, then there is nothing saying that the God hypothesis is unnecessary. And, we don't even know if it follows us, so, it's even less believable that the God hypothesis is unnecessary.

So if the transcendent domain would work with our logic, this would make sense. But hey, again you get infinite regression.
Conclusion is that our logic cannot work in the transcendent.
Making it impossible to for anything to create our domain.
It has to become out of itself in order to have it's own logic, which is possible in the transcendent.

It is not known that it doesn't work in the transcendent, though. And it's also not known that infinite regression would be necessary even though cause and effect exists in our universe, since, as before, cause and effect does not necessarily apply universally - after all, we've only studied it with particular examples. Even basic predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic) will tell us that we cannot go from a particular to a universal within our Domain.

As an edit:

Are you familiar with philosopher René Descartes? Specifically his meditations - works of his where he begins to form the basics of, "I think, therefore I am."

Consider the same manner he approached to bring about this quote - he assumes absolute ignorance of everything; he's completely without any knowledge, but he attempts to conclude that since he thinks, therefore he exists.

Now consider if we don't even have this fundamental assumption he used, "If something thinks, then it must exist." And we also do not have any other fundamental assumption.
We certainly cannot come to Descartes' conclusion, nor any other conclusions about any state of affairs, entity, or relationships.

[Miserabilia]

Even if we are simply making all knowledge up - based on our made up knowledge, it's still irrational if we are to conclude about something that is beyond the scope of our made up knowledge. It's unavoidable.

So, no. It does not have to follow our logic. That would be to go against our own logic entirely.

It's like if I make up the rule "All decks of cards have only a suit of Hearts."
Even though this is made up, if I am given a deck of playing cards with Spades, Clubs and Diamonds, I'm still going against that rule.

So, regardless of if you consider it to be made up or not - the distinction is between a metaphysical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) one and an epistemological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology) one.

Still cannot conclude of the transcendent, even if we consider that all we know is made up, because the reasoning still only works for (that which we know of, that we made up.)

As well, I am not claiming now that we did make everything up - I was merely going by what you presented that we know nothing of our universe.



It's what defines the Domains in the way we understand them through our universe. And again, the first sentence is begging the question, because it's assuming our understanding on things that are outside of it.

Regardless of the approach that's taken, we still cannot conclude about the transcendent. If we do, we are contradicting ourselves, and whether logic is made up entirely and we really have no understanding of even this universe, or it's based on concreteness of the world, it still does not change that something that is inscrutable is inscrutable, and hence, we cannot scrutinize it and be justified in our doing so.



Same problem.



Not necessarily, because we also do not have a sufficient understanding enough to claim that "it just became." That's still going too far.



Not quite, because we're not applying our logic to a Domain we do not know of. We're applying a potential counter-example that's within our Domain to demonstrate that even if the transcendent followed our reasoning exactly, then there is nothing saying that the God hypothesis is unnecessary. And, we don't even know if it follows us, so, it's even less believable that the God hypothesis is unnecessary.



It is not known that it doesn't work in the transcendent, though. And it's also not known that infinite regression would be necessary even though cause and effect exists in our universe, since, as before, cause and effect does not necessarily apply universally - after all, we've only studied it with particular examples. Even basic predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic) will tell us that we cannot go from a particular to a universal within our Domain.

As an edit:

Are you familiar with philosopher René Descartes? Specifically his meditations - works of his where he begins to form the basics of, "I think, therefore I am."

Consider the same manner he approached to bring about this quote - he assumes absolute ignorance of everything; he's completely without any knowledge, but he attempts to conclude that since he thinks, therefore he exists.

Now consider if we don't even have this fundamental assumption he used, "If something thinks, then it must exist." And we also do not have any other fundamental assumption.
We certainly cannot come to Descartes' conclusion, nor any other conclusions about any state of affairs, entity, or relationships.

I was merely going by what you presented that we know nothing of our universe.
*We only know what we experience with our senses.
Nothing is something else.




Regardless of the approach that's taken, we still cannot conclude about the transcendent. If we do, we are contradicting ourselves, and whether logic is made up entirely and we really have no understanding of even this universe, or it's based on concreteness of the world, it still does not change that something that is inscrutable is inscrutable, and hence, we cannot scrutinize it and be justified in our doing so.

logic is made up entirely and we really have no understanding of even this universe,

Everything we know is "made up" for us to know it, since we do not know of it untill the brain presents it to us.

No understanding? I think you are missing my point.
We do have understanding, but it is based on observation.
Rules aren't something we are sure of, but we just see things behaving according to them.

If you were to live in a city were there is a strict regime that everyone that doesn't jump every two steps when they walk (I don't know random lol),
gets shot,
you would probably see everyone jumping every two steps.

This does not mean that it is only possible for them to do so,
it's just that it's the only thing you observe when you are there.

So you can base the rule "Everyone jumpes every two steps"

Also, please explain what you mean by that last part.

Not necessarily, because we also do not have a sufficient understanding enough to claim that "it just became." That's still going too far.

It's going just as far as saying god created it.
Since it works by the same model.

"It just became. Because of god." It still just became.
You do not have a cause in this universe,
so from the point of view we have, it just became, regardles of it had a transcendent cause or not.


Not quite, because we're not applying our logic to a Domain we do not know of. We're applying a potential counter-example that's within our Domain to demonstrate that even if the transcendent followed our reasoning exactly, then there is nothing saying that the God hypothesis is unnecessary. And, we don't even know if it follows us, so, it's even less believable that the God hypothesis is unnecessary.

What do you mean with our reasoning? Just human reasoning to the cause of the universe? This is a bit unspecific, could you elaborate.


It is not known that it doesn't work in the transcendent, though. And it's also not known that infinite regression would be necessary even though cause and effect exists in our universe, since, as before, cause and effect does not necessarily apply universally - after all, we've only studied it with particular examples. Even basic predicate logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic) will tell us that we cannot go from a particular to a universal within our Domain.

Again, not sure what you mean,
starting with "And it's also not known that infinite regression would be necessary even though cause and effect exists in our universe".
What exactly do you mean?
Cause and effect is observed here, by something happening and something happening because of that.
We do not have any knowledge of the universe in advance, this is based on observation.

If a transcendent god created the universe, this is an act of cause and effect, and regardless of the domain, this would mean cause and effect logic, based on what we know of it.

If we say that does not mean cause and effect logic, we must be able to say the same thing of our universe.


-edited. -Emerald Dream

[Bleid]

*We only know what we experience with our senses.
Nothing is something else.

Then say that next time, instead of,

But we don't know anything about this universe either


Everything we know is "made up" for us to know it, since we do not know of it untill the brain presents it to us.

No understanding? I think you are missing my point.
We do have understanding, but it is based on observation.
Rules aren't something we are sure of, but we just see things behaving according to them.

If you were to live in a city were there is a strict regime that everyone that doesn't jump every two steps when they walk (I don't know random lol),
gets shot,
you would probably see everyone jumping every two steps.

This does not mean that it is only possible for them to do so,
it's just that it's the only thing you observe when you are there.

So you can base the rule "Everyone jumpes every two steps"

Also, please explain what you mean by that last part.



It's going just as far as saying god created it.
Since it works by the same model.

"It just became. Because of god." It still just became.
You do not have a cause in this universe,
so from the point of view we have, it just became, regardles of it had a transcendent cause or not.



What do you mean with our reasoning? Just human reasoning to the cause of the universe? This is a bit unspecific, could you elaborate.

Human reasoning is known as logic. That's as specific as it gets. There's nothing to elaborate on.

Again, not sure what you mean,
starting with "And it's also not known that infinite regression would be necessary even though cause and effect exists in our universe".
What exactly do you mean?
Cause and effect is observed here, by something happening and something happening because of that.
We do not have any knowledge of the universe in advance, this is based on observation.

Cause and effect is observed in particular cases and so you cannot apply cause and effect reasoning to a God even if it were to be known to exist in this universe, because you have no justification to believe that it would also apply to a God.

If a transcendent god created the universe, this is an act of cause and effect, and regardless of the domain, this would mean cause and effect logic, based on what we know of it.

Again - not necessarily. You're trying to apply logic cross-Domain, which, is precisely the issue, as it has been each time previous to this.

If we say that does not mean cause and effect logic, we must be able to say the same thing of our universe.

Not quite, because again, you are not aware of the particular logic for that other Domain, and so, you are not aware if one thing can imply another (in that Domain). You keep going over the same thing and seem to have a difficulty with the fact that it's still Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

But, to begin with, it's not guaranteed to be true that cause and effect applies universally.

We cannot argue validly in our Domain that:

1. Cause and effect works in situation 1.
2. Cause and effect works in situation 2.
.
.
.
n. Cause and effect works in situation n.
_________
(n+1). Therefore, cause and effect works in all situations, including for a deity.

This induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) doesn't even work to give us a probable reason to believe the conclusion, because the conclusion has to do with a deity that produced all of the other situations in the first place, so there isn't even something to say that it is even a similar enough situation that the deity would apply inductively, even if the deity is said to have "caused" the universe, because we are not aware of what that entails for a deity, since, we are not aware of the extent to which it can act. Because again, it's inscrutable.

And so, regardless of your particular examples of cause and effect, you still cannot apply it to a deity and claim that it brings up an infinite regression, even within our Domain - much less the transcendent Domain.

[darthearth]

.............

But, to begin with, it's not guaranteed to be true that cause and effect applies universally.

We cannot argue validly in our Domain that:

1. Cause and effect works in situation 1.
2. Cause and effect works in situation 2.
.
.
.
n. Cause and effect works in situation n.
_________
(n+1). Therefore, cause and effect works in all situations, including for a deity.

...........................

And so, regardless of your particular examples of cause and effect, you still cannot apply it to a deity and claim that it brings up an infinite regression, even within our Domain - much less the transcendent Domain.

I just wanted to point out here that the above is just another restatement of where the question of free will was left. For free will to exist there needs to be a non-causal chain of events that are not random. Here cause and effect is not valid, yet can still be in our universal domain. Free will is one example I think Bleid is elucidating.

[Miserabilia]

I just wanted to point out here that the above is just another restatement of where the question of free will was left. For free will to exist there needs to be a non-causal chain of events that are not random. Here cause and effect is not valid, yet can still be in our universal domain. Free will is one example I think Bleid is elucidating.

Then say that next time, instead of,






Human reasoning is known as logic. That's as specific as it gets. There's nothing to elaborate on.



Cause and effect is observed in particular cases and so you cannot apply cause and effect reasoning to a God even if it were to be known to exist in this universe, because you have no justification to believe that it would also apply to a God.



Again - not necessarily. You're trying to apply logic cross-Domain, which, is precisely the issue, as it has been each time previous to this.



Not quite, because again, you are not aware of the particular logic for that other Domain, and so, you are not aware if one thing can imply another (in that Domain). You keep going over the same thing and seem to have a difficulty with the fact that it's still Begging the Question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

But, to begin with, it's not guaranteed to be true that cause and effect applies universally.

We cannot argue validly in our Domain that:

1. Cause and effect works in situation 1.
2. Cause and effect works in situation 2.
.
.
.
n. Cause and effect works in situation n.
_________
(n+1). Therefore, cause and effect works in all situations, including for a deity.

This induction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning) doesn't even work to give us a probable reason to believe the conclusion, because the conclusion has to do with a deity that produced all of the other situations in the first place, so there isn't even something to say that it is even a similar enough situation that the deity would apply inductively, even if the deity is said to have "caused" the universe, because we are not aware of what that entails for a deity, since, we are not aware of the extent to which it can act. Because again, it's inscrutable.

And so, regardless of your particular examples of cause and effect, you still cannot apply it to a deity and claim that it brings up an infinite regression, even within our Domain - much less the transcendent Domain.




Cause and effect is observed in particular cases and so you cannot apply cause and effect reasoning to a God even if it were to be known to exist in this universe, because you have no justification to believe that it would also apply to a God.

Why exactly not? Do you mean by definition?
Does a god by definition have the means to break any law of the universe?
Anyway,


I know it really does sound like I am saying the same thing again and again,
but I really am reading and understanding what you say (!),
it's just that I find it very difficult to find words for what I am trying to say.

So I'm going to start over simple instead of having to respond seperatly to everything.


1: We observe the rules of this universe, which say there is cause and effect*

2: We do not observe anything in the transcendent,
therfefore do not know how it might work, so anything could be there and anything could happen there, without our logic

3: The start of this universe is by definition exactly in between the transcendent domain and this domain

4: Therefore it does not need a cause, in the transcendent it could, but not nescecairly come to exist without a cause.



First let's deal with this before going on to the actual god issue.

*again awkward word choise but I hope you know what I mean


-Edited. Please do not use the red font. -Emerald Dream

[AlexOnToast]

When I was younger, I remember doing one of those puzzles where you are given a story, and you have to fill in the blank spaces to complete the sentence. For a lot of them, I didnt know the word because I was young and didn't know better...so instead i just filled in the blanks with whatever word I thought sounded good. In my opinion, that pretty much sums up the argument for all of this. "We don't know, so lets just put in some filler". I go with what can be proven and observed.

[Bleid]

Cause and effect is observed in particular cases and so you cannot apply cause and effect reasoning to a God even if it were to be known to exist in this universe, because you have no justification to believe that it would also apply to a God.
Why exactly not? Do you mean by definition?
Does a god by definition have the means to break any law of the universe

The reason why not is because we are not certain as to whether or not cause and effect is actually a law of the universe.

It may very well be that cause and effect is present in only some cases. It may not actually apply to a God (if it was within our Domain), or some other things that we have yet to observe.

Or, even more interesting - it may be that cause and effect is the only way that we can understand phenomena. We may simply attribute this idea of cause and effect to situations because we can't grasp any other manner by which a state of affairs can exist, and so we could be wholly ignorant to much of the workings of the world simply because of these cause and effect blinders that we wear so proudly.

Point being, it would be hasty to conclude that cause and effect must be a law, and hastier still to conclude that it must apply to a deity whom would be responsible for the existence of such a law.

Anyway,

I know it really does sound like I am saying the same thing again and again,
but I really am reading and understanding what you say (!),
it's just that I find it very difficult to find words for what I am trying to say.

So I'm going to start over simple instead of having to respond seperatly to everything.

Fair enough. I like that you provided a well-structured argument form. It makes things easier to respond to what you're trying to get at.

1: We observe the rules of this universe, which say there is cause and effect*

2: We do not observe anything in the transcendent,
therfefore do not know how it might work, so anything could be there and anything could happen there, without our logic

3: The start of this universe is by definition exactly in between the transcendent domain and this domain

4: Therefore it does not need a cause, in the transcendent it could, but not nescecairly come to exist without a cause.

First let's deal with this before going on to the actual god issue.

*again awkward word choise but I hope you know what I mean

To premise #1:

Not necessarily in all cases, though - which is the issue. However, I will certainly agree that there does appear to be a presence of cause and effect in our observations.

To premise #2:

Nothing wrong here.

To premise #3:

How did you conclude that the start of the universe must be between the two?

To the conclusion:

I'd rephrase it to be:

The start of the universe requires a cause outside of itself (transcendent), since it did, to our knowledge, begin at one point. But the 'cause' of the universe may not require its own cause (as it is transcendent) and it may not even be accurate to use the term, "cause" to describe it, since we are not aware of the workings of the transcendent.

(Even if the universe has existed in the form of a singularity before the Big Bang, there would have been some justification for why the universe originated and expanded as it did.)

In addition, in the transcendent it could be a state of affairs that ignores the Law of Excluded Middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle).

Example:
It is not the case that (it is raining) and it is not the case that (it is not raining).

I just wanted to point out here that the above is just another restatement of where the question of free will was left. For free will to exist there needs to be a non-causal chain of events that are not random. Here cause and effect is not valid, yet can still be in our universal domain. Free will is one example I think Bleid is elucidating.

Oh, certainly. Well said.

[Miserabilia]

The reason why not is because we are not certain as to whether or not cause and effect is actually a law of the universe.

It may very well be that cause and effect is present in only some cases. It may not actually apply to a God (if it was within our Domain), or some other things that we have yet to observe.

Or, even more interesting - it may be that cause and effect is the only way that we can understand phenomena. We may simply attribute this idea of cause and effect to situations because we can't grasp any other manner by which a state of affairs can exist, and so we could be wholly ignorant to much of the workings of the world simply because of these cause and effect blinders that we wear so proudly.

Point being, it would be hasty to conclude that cause and effect must be a law, and hastier still to conclude that it must apply to a deity whom would be responsible for the existence of such a law.



Fair enough. I like that you provided a well-structured argument form. It makes things easier to respond to what you're trying to get at.



To premise #1:

Not necessarily in all cases, though - which is the issue. However, I will certainly agree that there does appear to be a presence of cause and effect in our observations.

To premise #2:

Nothing wrong here.

To premise #3:

How did you conclude that the start of the universe must be between the two?

To the conclusion:

I'd rephrase it to be:

The start of the universe requires a cause outside of itself (transcendent), since it did, to our knowledge, begin at one point. But the 'cause' of the universe may not require its own cause (as it is transcendent) and it may not even be accurate to use the term, "cause" to describe it, since we are not aware of the workings of the transcendent.

(Even if the universe has existed in the form of a singularity before the Big Bang, there would have been some justification for why the universe originated and expanded as it did.)

In addition, in the transcendent it could be a state of affairs that ignores the Law of Excluded Middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle).

Example:
It is not the case that (it is raining) and it is not the case that (it is not raining).



Oh, certainly. Well said.

How did you conclude that the start of the universe must be between the two?

By definition of the terms, start of our universe.
Our universe is our universe,
transcendent is outside our universe/before our universe,
our universe came out of the transcendent.

Therefore the start of our universe is by definition the exact point between the two

[Bleid]

By definition of the terms, start of our universe.
Our universe is our universe,
transcendent is outside our universe/before our universe,
our universe came out of the transcendent.

Therefore the start of our universe is by definition the exact point between the two

Not necessarily that the transcendent is outside of our universe. It is merely the inscrutable. To say it's outside is to put a restriction on it, which conflicts with this 'inscrutability'.

In addition, it could very well still be in the transcendent, even if it was outside of our universe. The origin doesn't necessarily need to be in between the two.