You cannot say 'nothing implies nothing...' it's false, as I told you in another forum. You didn't reply - but went right ahead and posted it here without addressing the issue. Typical religionist.

iconoclast.

No, just didn't want to waste my time explaining if you were going to run-away agian.:spam:

The logic of first cause is false because cause and effect is shown to be inapplicable under certain circumstances with reference to quantum phenomena that routinely obviate cause and effect. :rules:

Cause and effect applies to the existing classical scale universe - where there is energy, matter and a temopral sequence of events. :poke-eye:

Thus, the primordial universe - crushed into a quantum singulalrity :detective: is exempt on two counts - firstly, that it is on quantum scale, and secondly, there is no matter, energy or time - and thus no cause and effect. :smartass:

(T1) Nothing is nothing. (Victor Hugo)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A)∧(idA: A → A)∧(∃Ax)(A = x) (Mars Turner)
Four senses of "is" are meant here; of identity, of implication, of predication, and of existence;
A ≡ A "nothing equals nothing" Law of Identity
A → A "nothing implies nothing" Reflexivity of Implication
idA: A → A "nothing has the property of nothing" Identity Morphism
(∃Ax)(A = x) "nothing exists as nothing" Reflexivity of Existence


(T2) Nothing is uninvolved. - Something is self-causal. (Mars Turner)
(A ≡ A)∧(A → A) [consciousness]
nothing equals nothing AND nothing implies nothing
ergo nothing is not implicated with something
ergo everything is implicated with something
ergo something is self-implicated
Note; Implication suggests causation and is correlation. When it is impossible for there to be missing variables correlation necessarily is causation, as the only reason correlation would not be causation is the possibility of missing variables.
ergo nothing is not causal with something Q.E.D.
ergo everything is causal with something
ergo something is self-causal Q.E.D.


I have highlighted in the text of your argument the difference between your statements 'nothing implies nothing' and 'something is self causal.'

Clearly you have now shifted the basis of your argument forward to a point you think you may be able to support given my arguments - that while you suggest are confused, have removed the fundamental basis of your argument, leaving it a free floating assertion.

...or what we round here call faith.:whip:

:brickwall::brickwall::brickwall:

We both know that logic is not your favored ground...

Get stuffed you snotty prick!

I haven't used the term 'Big Bang' yet as I wanted you to arrive at the other logical explanation for all that exists without direction.

The logic you apply is the logic of the existing universe - but if you would begin your argument with 'nothing' then these rules do not apply.

Where the Big Bang is concerned, causality, and therefore reflexivity of implication does not apply. Nothing did come from nothing.

Thus, the nothing you refer to, that cannot even be spoken of as existing, nor of existing before the big bang - because time did not exist, implies everything. I think of it in a binary sense - 0 - nothing - 1 everything.

God is restrained by himself. Stoics call God the Logos... from which we get our English word logic.


IF omnipotence is all-power-full and we use the scientific definition of power as I have highlighted it;

Then we have solved the paradox thus;


Can God create a rock that he cannot lift?

No, God cannot do anything contrary to his nature. Creating anything involves the transformation of energy, and moving anything requires the transformation of energy. God is an infinite energy and a rock which inherently has finite form cannot exist in an infinite substantial state. Therefore God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift.

What does the law of non-contradiction have to do with the double slit experiment?

You are welcome to provide a single example of a proposition that is both true and false in the same respect at the same time! By the way, that would actually falsify the law of non-contradiction.

However, when one is writing a proof... a logical tautology is logical truth.

No one can create a proof without using tautologies.

thank you for the correction - i did indeed mean something, indeed, everything came from nothing.

it is not necessary that the big bang had a cause.

p.s. please don't reproduce this post.

Why is it not necessary that the big bang had a cause? It seems a bit silly to assume this, especially considering that the hyperbolic boundry of space time and the constant expansion of the universe seem to indicate that the universe is expanding into somthing, the properties of which we do not know. It is entirely viable that the entirety of our universe is quite small in comparison to the totality of physical reality, and that this universe is but one of many which are each at varying stages of their life cycles.

I think all this talk is a bit premature without a cohesive theory of quantum gravitation.

You must base your proof soley on that which is provable. Empirical verification does not validate a conjecture or theory as a definite truth, so do not use sicentific conjecture, only pure logic. If you cannot prove god a priori, but rather you must rest the proof on the shoulders of scientific conjecture, you do not have a proof.

Physical science is not tautological as it is falsifiable, do not cite it in your proof to avoid confusion.

because i say so.