The Big Bang appears deliberate.

How could anything set of the Big Bang yet still survive? Now if it was non-material… maybe it could…

You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa

No, all people do is say 'that argument was dismissed elsewhere' but they won't say where. It is very frustrating that people are not even engaging with my arguments.

You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph — Frank Apisa

It is a fact that from time to time, new discoveries are made. It is good to be open minded about the possibility that could happen here. The way to find out is to engage in meaningful debate, that way we will discover if my ideas are any good or not. Just dismissing my ideas out of hand (IE saying they have been dismissed elsewhere which is BS) is not a very scientific/philosophical approach.

A lot of words but not even a single counter argument :(

People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them — Frank Apisa

I do not dismiss them; I read each one, think about it and post a valid counter-counter argument. Or is someone comes up with a valid counter argument, I acknowledge it and stop posting about that particular idea.

Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause. — Frank Apisa

I spent a lot of time justifying the existence of the first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1). No-one has come up with any valid counter arguments. So I have done more than 'posit' a first cause; I have shown there must be a first cause - how can anything exist without a first cause?

Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start. — Frank Apisa

No-one has come up with a valid counter argument. And it makes sense. The Big Bang sure looks like a start of time. Entropy is too low for there not to be a start of time.

This is the problem with every "philosophical" assertion pertaining to the supernatural. There is, without exception, a prerequisite assumption followed by a series of explanations as if the assumption is fact. — whollyrolling

Could you identify the 'prerequisite assumption'?

It seems simple to me, the universe can't have existed forever (it would have no start so none of it would exist) so it must of been created by something external to the universe - something not of nature - something supernatural.

I think that is hypocritical.

Well go ahead and either raise a counter argument or provide a link to a counter argument that I have not addressed.

That's just BS. I have addressed all your counter arguments.

Space doesn't occur without time — Terrapin Station

Exactly. I can show time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). So space does not exist 'before' time was created. So the creator of both space and time must be spaceless and timeless.

No. Because nothing can be non-material. The notion of non-material things is incoherent.

Nothing can be apart from spacetime, either. — Terrapin Station

Spacetime was created 14 billion years ago. By something not of spacetime. Space can't exist without time so that something was spaceless as well as timeless.

A great book to read that addresses this issue to some extent is called "Flatland" — christian2017

I have heard about it but never read it. 'A Sphere' demonstrates to 'A Square' the nature of 3D by lowering and raising himself through Flatland. Sounds brilliant... must read it some time.

That god is so obviously mythological...no arguments are really needed. — Frank Apisa

As I said, I am not arguing for any particular God. The chances of any particular religion actually being true seem minimal to me, but the chances that a 'generic' God exists seem much higher. This God is not mythological in any way. This God has to obey the rules of logic for example. So I think such a God is not only possible, but probable.

If you want to think a god made the Earth...placed it in orbit around a star...placed that star in a galaxy with 250 billion other stars...and placed that galaxy in among hundreds of billions of other galaxies...

...and still cares about what some guys does with his own dick... — Frank Apisa

I do not think that, what I think is:

- God was responsible for the Big Bang only. He did not make the Earth directly.
- Gos is not omnipresent. It just seems unlikely to me. Where is his nervous system for example?

Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

Care to expand?
— Devans
At my age...best not to. — Frank Apisa

Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on earth is there to gain by doing that?

I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause.
— Devans

Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example. — Frank Apisa

My first cause I suppose was sexual intercourse of my parents. Everything has a cause apart from the timeless first cause surely?

God??? — Frank Apisa

"Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

So the convention of using 'him' to refer to God stems from the Judaic tradition I grant you.

Since you are not talking about "a god"...but rather about "God"...and referring to it as "he"...I will make the assumption I made, because it almost certainly is that god — Frank Apisa

Seriously, I am not religious.

If you are suggesting you can make arguments for that god here and that I cannot respond...I have a suggestion for that suggestion.

Do you want to hear it or are you pretty sure you know what my suggestion would be? — Frank Apisa

I would like to hear your suggestion (and any counter arguments you can make against God).

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence for what may not exist...a tortured bit of logic...think it. — Frank Apisa

Well you could for example show the universe was not created or show there was no first cause; both would be equivalent to disproving God's existence.

From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament. — Frank Apisa

I do not know which God it is. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I know. There is an almost zero chance that any of the worlds religions are correct so it is hard to identify God with a particular Religion. Some religions have some things partially correct. For example, I believe catholics believe that God is timeless which is correct.

You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God — Frank Apisa

If you want to debate the existence of a first cause, best to do it here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p2

I have laid out all the arguments in the OP.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.

You are wrong. — Frank Apisa

What empirical evidence can you give against God? My God is not omni-present BTW.

Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting. — Frank Apisa

No-one has pointed out any flaws. Care to expand? I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. I would just love to debate some of this stuff with people but no-one comes up with any counter arguments.

You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that? — Frank Apisa

I am using God as an abbreviation of 'timeless first cause'

And why do you refer to it as "he?" — Frank Apisa

It is conventional to refer to God as a he. God has no sex, is not the product of bi-sexual reproduction, so it is just a convention that people use.

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa

I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' others to their side.

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa

There are logical arguments for God. There are no logical arguments against God. There is empirical evidence for God. There is no empirical evidence against God. Hence the die is weighted.

To poll or not to poll... For what it is worth, I am mildly considering the possibility of running a poll asking whether forum members believe spirit exists (in some form or another) or not. — 0 thru 9

Maybe ask first whether the non-material can exist. I'm of the opinion that it can (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5606/could-god-be-non-material). Maybe ask if the spirit world can interact with the real world. Maybe ask if they (or anyone they know) has ever seen a ghost (or aliens might be interesting too).

Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic.

Both Theist and Atheist standpoints challenge logic.

'This statement is not provable' means:

1) this is a statement
2) this is not provable

IE it is not provable if it is a statement. Also if you read the OP, it is syntactically different from a statement.

Agreed. It works the other way around too. The universe is so big, God would never be able to find us.

We can say things such as "This sound is purple" or "This smell is true", but they don't refer to anything in the range of what we experience, or at least I can't form a mental image of whatever these statements may refer to — leo

I think that anything that is self contradictory or nonsensical should be classed as a non-statement - such statements disprove themselves if you see what I mean.

Like the paradoxes in the theory of relativity, they are a consequence of the postulates at the basis of the theory, we can choose to ignore them and just "shut up and calculate" and make predictions that fit somewhat with observations, or we can change the framework (change the theory, pick different postulates) so that the paradoxes disappear while making similar observable predictions, in the end it depends whether we're looking for mathematical 'elegance' with symmetries and so on or if we're looking for intuitive simplicity. I'm a bit like you on this, I prefer intuitive simplicity that can be grasped by many over mathematical elegance that leads to complexity, paradoxes and confusion — leo

Yes, just like infinity clouds and complicates set theory, the loose definition we have of statement greatly complicates logic.

It is complicated stuff that I admit I don't fully understand:

'The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_incompleteness_theorems

These theorems place profound epistemological limitations on formal logic and mathematics. If we remove this class of malformed, contradictory statements then these limitations do not apply any more.

We have no idea of what exists that we still have not detected. — Frank Apisa

https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

So there are 1*10^24 stars in the observable universe. God could be anywhere amongst them. So we can't use 'we can't find God' to categorically disprove the existence of God.

These self-denying statements are acceptable according to formal logic and they lead to Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.

Not all statements in a given language can be given a truth value, in that they don't refer to anything that allows to determine a truth value — leo

If it can't be given a truth value, its not a statement would be a simple rule to adopt.

So in the case of the Godel statement, ‘this statement is not provable’… means 'it is not provable that this is a statement'. If you can’t prove its a statement then you can even start to prove it.

You can also interpret 'this statement as false' as:

1. this is a statement
2. and it is false

So 2 says 1 is false. IE it is not a statement.

I would suggest trying to simplify your life. Paying bills for instance can be automated. Reduce the amount of admin in your life so that you have more time for the pleasant things in life.

I would just add that when human are not behaving logically, they are behaving emotionally. But emotions themselves are 'logical' - they are signals like fear or love from the more primitive parts of our mind to the conscious mind and they can be analysed logically.

So for example, a hypothesis is that there are certain patterns or ratios in music that we find especially pleasing. Science maybe able to identify these characteristics.

And if you have any idea how knowledge of our glands and biochemicals could inform our knowledge of emotions, there are many people who would be very interested to speak with you, maybe even offer you money for your insights — Pattern-chaser

I'm no expert but adrenaline is the fight/flight chemical, dopamine the reward chemical. There is quite a science to it I believe.

Fundamentally I think science is about logic and logic is applicable to everything (the world is logical and humans are logical).

OK point taken, there is a moral aspect to religion that I missed. But morality can be defined mathematically quite simply (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1).

I am after the truth. These religions claim life after death. So life after death experiences do offer a way to assess the claims of conventional religion.

The emotional appreciation (if I might call it that) of art/music is wholly invisible to science — Pattern-chaser

But emotions are due to glands and chemicals in our brain/bodies. These things are investigable with science. We could correlate the patterns of music to the biological changes that take place.

It's as if you have proposed to investigate Monet's oil paintings by analysing the composition of his paints — Pattern-chaser

His paintings are about nature I think. So it would be a question of seeing what it is about nature that we find so fascinating. Nature is about patterns and patterns tend to be mathematical or subjectable to mathematical analysis.

Politics — Pattern-chaser

Its all a simple equality of short term < long term.

Music and art? — Pattern-chaser

Music and art are mathematical. See for example the Golden Ratio.

Religion and spirituality? — Pattern-chaser

Is basically a quest to answer the question 'what happens when we die?'. Possibly investigable empirically via 'Near Death Experiences'.

Katie Price (as a media phenomenon, not a person)? — Pattern-chaser

Possibly collecting data on her via a survey?

You know of empirical evidence for (or against) the existence of God? — Pattern-chaser

The Big Bang is evidence for a first cause, which is sometimes taken as God. I believe there was a first cause for other reasons too though (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1)

Questions like 'is there a God?', 'is space infinite?' we can collect empirical evidence for. Not all philosophical questions granted, thats why I say 'where possible'.

So I think what I'm suggesting is that philosophy should employ as much of the scientific method as possible for a particular problem:

- Systematic observation and experimentation - philosophers observe nature and comment on it. They may perform experimentation too.
- Inductive and deductive reasoning - philosophers do this as a matter of course.
- The formation and testing of hypotheses and theories - philosophers should do this if possible.

Science and philosophy are no longer the same (if they ever where), and standards which apply to one do not necessarily apply to the other. — Pattern-chaser

They both share logic (deductive, inductive, abductive reasoning) as a foundation.

If you look at how the two disciplines evolved, it is correct to say that science is a branch of philosophy (natural philosophy).

I don't see a credible argument for adopting scientific practices within philosophy. — Pattern-chaser

We can have an abstract philosophical argument, say space is discrete, but that argument will not find general acceptance unless there is empirical evidence to back it up. This is the heart of the scientific method and philosophy must abide by it where possible in order to still be relevant.

Philosophy could not, for example, consider the morality of Islamophobia or anti-semitism if it operated by the scientific method. — Pattern-chaser

I believe morality can be accounted for logically but that is another discussion. IMO everything is susceptible to logical and thus scientific/philosophical investigation.

Inductive reasoning is not clearly accepted within science, never mind outside of it. Generalising from the particular is dodgy, if not downright wrong — Pattern-chaser

Science is inherently inductive. Both the theory of gravity and evolution are inductive knowledge. Most of the stuff we know is known inductively. So philosophy can't be without induction.

On the contrary, the fit seems poor, at best. — Pattern-chaser

I think the problem is the general public have belief in the scientific method; if any philosophy does not follow the scientific method then it is regarded (by the general public) as unsound.

Remember that science was once (and still is) called natural philosophy.

Look none of you folks seem to be able to provide either:

A) A valid counter argument
B) A link to a valid counter argument

All of your arguments hinge on your idiosyncratic definition of infinite. It is obvious to any moderately intelligent reader and your denial is disingenuous. — Isaac

What about Thomas's arguments; they are not resting on my definition of infinity?

And I think my arguments hinge only on a common sense understanding of infinity that is compatible with what is taught in schools. Point out where if you disagree.

How? You have been presented with the dissenting opinion. You say you disagree. This has all already been done. Now what? — Isaac

There have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented to my points in the OP. Point out where if you disagree.

Scientific method? Would we look in a cookery book to find out how to service a car engine? Would philosophical method not be more appropriate? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

From the source above:

'Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories'

In philosophy, we are light on observation and experimentation, but the rest of it sounds like the ticket...

There is not on Wikipedia for it. I guess our method is based on:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/

OK, how about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology