The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of Ignorance, a God Thread by Decepticon.

[Decepticon]

I shall start by copy pasting a page recently left in my comments. I will refute this page in bold lettering, so that you may tell where my comments begin, and the religious comments end.

The original site may be found here.

We shall begin now.

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

The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
This is an attempt to demonstrate the existence of God using logical absolutes. The oversimplified argument, which is expanded in outline form below, goes as follows. Logical absolutes exist. Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on the space, time, physical properties, or human nature.
They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter) because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true. Logical Absolutes are not the product of human minds because human minds are different, not absolute. But, since logical absolutes are always true everywhere and not dependent upon human minds, it must be an absolute transcendent mind is authoring them. This mind is called God. Hahahaha

1. Logical Absolutes
1. Law of Identity
1. Something is what it is and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
2. Law of Non-Contradiction
1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
3. Law of Excluded Middle
1. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
2. "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
1. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "This statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
3. Note three: If we again ignore note one, and admit a paradox we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only with the realm of absolutes.
2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as
1. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
Quantum physics would disagree with this pretty hard. It's quite possible for something to bring itself into existence. Look up 'Mining the Quantum Field' on Google sometime. Really interesting stuff, that I'm sure Quantum Tuba can talk on more readily than I. I spread myself too thin, while he reminds me of the man who taught ME about all of this. A younger and not in college version, but still...

Further, there is no need for things to come into existence. It's quite possible that the mass of the universe has simply always existed. As a religious person you believe that God has always existed. Why can't the same be true of matter and the forces of the universe which act upon it?

While it is true that dust can not act upon itself, the force of gravity can pull dust and chemicals together into a planet. Upon that planet chemicals may react, etc. etc. leading to the existence of rock, trees, clouds, and life as we know it.
4. Truth is not self-contradictory.
Guess that means the bible is false.
1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false depending on preference, or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse
1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non contradiction).
2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements. These should be under the same bullet point. The author can't even write a proper outline and we're to believe he can prove the existence of God?
3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this Descartes would disagree, but do go on...), then we can conclude that logical statements are true, otherwise we would not be able to rational discuss or know truth.
5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent
1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we traveled a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true. Not really, as that all the examples of logical absolutes they've used so far--"A rock is a rock and nothing else"--depend upon the laws of physics being absolute. The laws of physics are not necessarily absolute in all places. Quantum Mechanics, and Parallel Universe theories for the win.
2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we traveled a billion in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true. Like my last bolded side step, except this time, I believe there is actually evidence that physics did behave differently near the beginning of the universe than it does now, so says crazy Quantum Physics College Guy.
3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking. But they have, so far, been demonstrated as being dependent on physical laws, and observation alters the outcome of experiments--which is to say that observation alters the laws of physics, which is to say that the laws of physics are dependent on people. Again with the Quantum Theory.
1. People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds. Logic is a product of human minds, therefore any laws of logic are ALSO products of the human mind. This entire thing is merely a philosophy presented as fact and truth.
2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, then they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point. Logical Absolutes are like beauty. Would beauty cease to exist without humans? The answer is both yes and no. The beautiful things would exist, and they would look the same way--in this way, yes. However, there would be no one to quantify it as beautiful or name its appearance as beautiful. In such, there would be no 'beauty'.
5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world
1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc. and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.Except that they are. A rock is only a rock and nothing else because the atoms of the rock combine in molecules that form the particles which have been pushed together by heat and pressure (a form of movement) until solid. In a world with different physical laws it may be possible for something to be more than one thing at the same time. It's not possible for us to know one way or the other.

The logical absolutes of this universe apply only to this universe at this point in space and time, wherein our laws of physics operate in a predefined fashion.
1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist. Only in the same fashion as beauty/humanity/etc. etc.
4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
1. For example, if the universe did not exist it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence, that anything that did exist would have an identity, and that whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.Already disproven.
2. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
6. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature
1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
1. If they are conceptual by nature, they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence. Concepts are created by man. Man exists only because of the physical universe. See beauty argument again.
7. Thoughts reflect the mind
1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is. Sure
2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind. Ohhh, I see where you're goin' with this now.
3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God. I see what you did there...

Too bad logical absolutes are a concept created by human minds, such as beauty, good, evil, etc.
8. Objections Answered
1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence
1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?Answered already. Multiple times.
2. Logical Absolutes simply exist.
1. This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.Neither is simply saying God exists because the universe works the way it does.
3. Logical Absolutes are conventions.
1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds and therefore are not the product of human conventions; that is, of human agreements.This is not an argument against Logical Absolutes being conventions. It is, however, ridiculous. Logic exists purely in the human mind as a human thought process--therefore so do Logical Absolutes.
2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes with a product of human minds which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that the trend send space and time and are absolute by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds are finite and not absolute. Except they do not transcend space and time, are not absolute, and are a product of human minds, as pointed out above, multiple times.

To paraphrase the Tao Te Ching, We see logic, and therein lies madness.
4. Logical Absolutes are eternal.
1. What is meant by stating they are eternal?
2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)? Firstly: They are not eternal, as that some of the basic precepts would cease to function in worlds of differing physical laws. Secondly: If they were, they would exist in the same manner as beauty, ugliness, good, evil, etc. The things which make them up would exist, but the concept would not.
5. Logical Absolutes are uncaused
1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused, as if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them. Concepts are not necessarily authored on a conscious level.
6. Logical Absolutes are self authenticating.
1. This means it logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
2. It is begging the question. It just says the are, because they are.
7. Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess which are not absolute and transcendent.
1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.
8. There are different kinds of logic
1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes. It points out that the logical absolutes are different in different kinds of logic, however, once more proving that they are not as absolute as one would think by reading this.
9. "Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying "they would be true even if matter didn't exist" is irrelevant, because we're concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying "the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn't exist" doesn't imply that your car is transcendental. (reductio ad absurdum)"
1. Why do logical absolute need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't account for their existence. "Need" deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes. Untrue--need in this case has nothing to do with desires. Need is used in this case in the same way that a car needs someone to create it, or a human needs a mother. Does a car desire to be created? Does a human desire to be born? Of course not. Neither has any desires before their existence, but they still need those things to exist.

This argument is saying that Logical Absolutes no more need to be authored by someone, or something, than a car needs a cat.
2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say that they would be true even if matter didn't exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones.
3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid. But the concept of the car would exist.

Well, actually it wouldn't, because there would be no minds to remember the concept of a car.

In much the same way there would be no minds to create the concept of logical absolutes.

This is also why my arguments along the same vain used other concepts that could very well exist, in the same degree as logical absolutes, without matter. That is to say their contingent parts would exist (some may find a forever stretching empty void to be quite profoundly beautiful), but there would be no minds to recognize these concepts, and they would not exist in that sense.
10. "Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc. Suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt. (ball's in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this)" (...continued in next objection...)
1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so, doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates your assertion is incorrect. No
Just because we wouldn't accept it as valid, doesn't mean you couldn't do it.

I'm not entirely certain what this refutation is supposed to be saying... It sounds like a counter argument, but there's no meat to it.

Nothing to argue back against. Except is repeating argument that anything that doesn't contradict couldn't be a product of the human mind--which itself is completely silly.

There are plenty of works created by human minds in philosophy which do not contradict themselves, yet are not considered the end all and be all of human existence. Descartes, again, does not contradict himself at all. However, his philosophy states the opposite of this one. Instead of proving the existence of a God, he proves that he can be certain of the existence of nothing except himself.
11. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes are absolute not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special ontological quality. (category error on your part)"
1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate that they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds because human minds contradict each other and themselves.
3. I do not see any category mistake on my part. The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual, not physical. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.
12. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, any more than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental. (non sequitor)
1. Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used. The author has done nothing to prove that they are transcendent, except repeating it over and over again.
2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes. And And what?
13. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all. (reality check)
1. You haven't defined "material construct" or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you at all because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven't solved the problem of their existence since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute but dependent upon human minds. Again the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory. Just because you call something absolute doesn't make it so.
2. You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.
14. "Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has'. It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans."
1. Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its existence. Essentially this is begging the question; stating that something exists because it exists. Actually it's saying that it exists for the same reason our organs exist. We evolved to have it.
2. The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures. Logic is impossible without the human brain, or a brain of equal sophistication. It is therefore, ENTIRELY reliant upon biological structures.
15. Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?
1. "semantics of the language". Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say that the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words, is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non absolute languages? That's why they aren't absolute. In fact, as the person you are refuting pointed out--They are absolute in all CONCEIVABLE worlds. This means that there may be worlds in which they are not. Ergo: Not absolute.
Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid. You use your own fallacious assertions to call an objection invalid. Now you sound like your average religious crazy person.
2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
3. If logic is the result of language and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute. No law is absolute. Whether, logical, grammatical, or scientific.
4. Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question. This entire argument is begging the question plus circular logic. It states that logical absolutes are absolute. Why? Because they are. It then states that because they are absolute they must have been created by God. Why? Because only God could create absolutes.

Why are logical absolutes absolute? They must be created by God. Why must they be created by God? Because they are absolute.

[Vertigo_One]

"The word conceivable is a qualifier, which admits that logical constants are tied to the laws of physics and matter of this universe.

With that fact, the entire original argument falls apart."

Erm, why? Can you explain this more?

[Decepticon]

Any conceivable universe/world qualifies the word any, and reduces it to merely any universe that was currently conceivable. In this way it ties it to physics, as any inconceivable world would be one wherein the laws of physics were different than the ones which those authoring the philosophy of logical absolutes existed.

As that our universe, and perhaps others, do not follow the rules that their 'conceivable universe' does, the logical absolutes are not completely and totally absolute.

[Karl Simmons]

Ok, I don't have the attention span for this thread, but I don't mind giving it a bump.

[Chip]

My brain hurts a little, but I always enjoy when someone trying to prove god exists is pwned.

Wait! I can't agree with Decepticon! But that means I have to believe in god! My logical absolute has died. Shocking.

[QuantumTuba]

Can't you be subtle and disagree with the reasoning behind his arguments but still accept the validity of his conclusion?

[Vertigo_One]

"Quantum physics would disagree with this pretty hard. It's quite possible for something to bring itself into existence."

Does it? Without first cause. So it accepts things can just bring themselves into existance when they did'nt exist before

"Further, there is no need for things to come into existence. It's quite possible that the mass of the universe has simply always existed. As a religious person you believe that God has always existed. Why can't the same be true of matter and the forces of the universe which act upon it?"

God as an entity created the laws of matter, space and time. This in turn means he is not affected by them. Therefore to discuss God and the universe as comparable is inaccurate.

"Not really, as that all the examples of logical absolutes they've used so far--"A rock is a rock and nothing else"--depend upon the laws of physics being absolute. The laws of physics are not necessarily absolute in all places. Quantum Mechanics, and Parallel Universe theories for the win."

My understanding of Quantum physics may be wrong here, but thus far we do not have any proof of the existance of parralel universes where the laws of physics are different. And the schrodinger idea of the cat being dead and alive is a matter of perception, not reality

"But they have, so far, been demonstrated as being dependent on physical laws, and observation alters the outcome of experiments--which is to say that observation alters the laws of physics, which is to say that the laws of physics are dependent on people. Again with the Quantum Theory."

No, they havn't. The very principles of logic which allow scientists to objectively observe the universe cannot be discoverd via science. Science has made the judgement that the emperical method is the best way for it to obtain objective knowledge. But the logic it uses to do this was not obtained through emperical observation. It was obtained from other sources. If it was obtained through emperical observation, it is circular "How do we know emperical observation works, because we emperically observed it..." etc

"Logic is a product of human minds, therefore any laws of logic are ALSO products of the human mind. This entire thing is merely a philosophy presented as fact and truth."

No, logic is a discovery of human minds. 2+2=4 is something that would be true regardless whether or not human minds were here to discover it. It would not perhaps be symbolised in this particular way, but it would remain accurate.

"Logical Absolutes are like beauty. Would beauty cease to exist without humans? The answer is both yes and no. The beautiful things would exist, and they would look the same way--in this way, yes. However, there would be no one to quantify it as beautiful or name its appearance as beautiful. In such, there would be no 'beauty'."

Beauty is subjective, logic is not.

"In a world with different physical laws it may be possible for something to be more than one thing at the same time. It's not possible for us to know one way or the other."

Speculative, at best. Can you prove the existance of such a universe?

[Decepticon]

"Does it? Without first cause. So it accepts things can just bring themselves into existance when they did'nt exist before"

No. That's silly. It's been observed. They may have explained it away better by now, but last I heard, and I'm not bothering my friend again for your stubborness, is that they were working on a way of catching this incredibly small particles that seem to pop in and out of existence on the event horizon of black holes. And, actually: here's a book preview by Hawking that explains this.

"God as an entity created the laws of matter, space and time. This in turn means he is not affected by them. Therefore to discuss God and the universe as comparable is inaccurate."

God is a fairytale, therefore to discuss God and reality as comparable is inaccurate, and yet I deign to humor you.

"And the schrodinger idea of the cat being dead and alive is a matter of perception, not reality"

Firstly--again, as I've already noted from my friend, an expert in the field where you are not, experiments have proven over and over again, with hard math, that things can exist in two, seemingly, mutually exclusive states at once. In fact, and I should have thought of this sooner, that is exactly how quantum computing works. A quantum bit can be both on and off at the same time, allowing for infinitely greater processing power.

Secondly--read the forward in the link above, where it says, straight out, that the act of observing alters reality. Perception IS reality.

"Science has made the judgement that the emperical method is the best way for it to obtain objective knowledge."

The empirical method isn't a strictly defined method. You're probably thinking of the experimental method.

And, either way, quantum mechanics relies on a lot of math and specifically not observing things--otherwise there'd be no way to know that things act differently when we aren't observing them.

"No, logic is a discovery of human minds. 2+2=4 is something that would be true regardless whether or not human minds were here to discover it. It would not perhaps be symbolised in this particular way, but it would remain accurate."

Except in the case of very large values of two.

"Beauty is subjective, logic is not."

Logic is, though. The fact that observation alters reality, and things can exist in two seemingly mutually exclusive states at the same time (on and off at once), the fact that particles can be spontaneously created from miniature black holes... all these things defy general logic.

Yet they are true and verifiable.

"Speculative, at best. Can you prove the existance of such a universe?"

Read more.

[Vertigo_One]

"No. That's silly. It's been observed. They may have explained it away better by now, but last I heard, and I'm not bothering my friend again for your stubborness, is that they were working on a way of catching this incredibly small particles that seem to pop in and out of existence on the event horizon of black holes. And, actually: here's a book preview by Hawking that explains this."

Have they? Or is it just that they enter a state which is not observable with current mechanisims. Is there no cause? Those things are not bringing themselves into existance when the did not exist previously. They have a cause that is external to themselves

"God is a fairytale, therefore to discuss God and reality as comparable is inaccurate, and yet I deign to humor you."

You're making an absolute statmenet about something you have no absolutes about. You may believe he is a fairy tale, I do not. The point of what you believe or what I believe however here, is moot. The point I raised still stands. If God created the universe, and the universe is made essentially out of space, matter and time, then it stands to reason he is not bound by the properties of those three things, ergo he needs no first cause. Now that is a theory, not proof, but it does explain why you need first cause in the universe, but not for God.

"Firstly--again, as I've already noted from my friend, an expert in the field where you are not, experiments have proven over and over again, with hard math, that things can exist in two"

Do they actually physcially exist in two? Or is it that the maths requires them to in order to function. Has there yet been a physical experiment where something is physcially demonstrated to be two things at one time?

"A quantum bit can be both on and off at the same time, allowing for infinitely greater processing power."

I know enough about Quantum theory to know that a qunatum bit is not actually on and off at the same time, it is a matter of perception.

"Secondly--read the forward in the link above, where it says, straight out, that the act of observing alters reality. Perception IS reality."

Is that science or is that maths?

"Except in the case of very large values of two"

What the symbol "2" means is irrelevent. If you have two objects and another two objects, you will have four objects. That is basic logic.

"The empirical method isn't a strictly defined method. You're probably thinking of the experimental method."

Semantics. The point is that it is derrived from logic, and it is circular. How do we know the expermetal method is best? Because we tested it? How? Using the experimental method...

Its circular. Unless you invoke logic

"And, either way, quantum mechanics relies on a lot of math and specifically not observing things--otherwise there'd be no way to know that things act differently when we aren't observing them."

How can you know whether things act diffrently when you do not observe them if you do not observe them? You theorise, but you cannot know for certian...

In any case, your entire argument falls down on its own sword. If you accept that quantum physics breaks down logic, then the entire system of argument we have developed is arbitarty and superflous, therefore nothing is true and nothing is false, which would both prove and disprove your idea, my idea and every other idea in the entire history of human thought. Don't you think thats a little bit ludicrous.

[Sithdarth]

1) Quantum supposition is a very real physical thing at least as far as all evidence suggests. For example, when an electron transitions from one electron orbital to another it actually exists in both while at that same time being in each one individually. This causes a fluctuation in the charge distribution around the atom which causes the emission of a photon. We don't really have the conceptual tools to understand what it means but its certainly something physical beyond switching back and forth normally.

Another example is the qubit where it can be a one, a zero, or a combination of the two. You claim its a matter of perception but fail to realize that a particle in supposition can be used to perform 2 different operations at the same time. Something a bit that can only be a 1 or a 0 couldn't ever possibly do. As a side note, we don't have to look directly at a particle (and thereby destroy the supposition) to see if its in a state of supposition. We can look for effects that could only occur in a supposed state like the ones mentioned above.

2) The quantum vacuum energy that was eluded to before is actually a sea of basically every conceivable type of particle that are coming into existence and disappearing basically instantly. They have real physical effects that we can see so we know they are there. First there is normal Pair Production in which a bunch of energy in the form of a photon suddenly vanishes and a positron and electron suddenly come into existence. Here the positron and electron and naturally come into existence and then borrowed the energy of the passing gamma ray to stick around for longer than normal. Second, natural decay from excited quantum states back to lower states is simply impossible without this particle sea. Quantum states in atoms are perfectly and absolutely stable once an electron jumps to a higher orbital it should stay there forever but it doesn't. We know that the electrons transition back down because the particles that are randomly coming into and out of existence bump into the electrons and give them just enough energy to make it out of the stable orbital and fall back down.

As for this:
"In any case, your entire argument falls down on its own sword. If you accept that quantum physics breaks down logic, then the entire system of argument we have developed is arbitarty and superflous, therefore nothing is true and nothing is false, which would both prove and disprove your idea, my idea and every other idea in the entire history of human thought. Don't you think thats a little bit ludicrous."

Arbitrary maybe but not superfluous. However, arbitrary is not always a synonym for useless. Our desalination of time and space in units of seconds and meters is totally arbitrary but also very useful. Just because there are exceptions to a rule doesn't completely invalidate the rule system it just means you have to be more careful about how you use it.

[Vertigo_One]

Do we actually know for certain that they are moving in and out of existance, or are they simply moving into a state which we cannot observe or account for with current methods?

A friend of mine who is an expert in Quantum mechanics essentially informs me that a Qbit is not actually both at the same time but is actually a matter of posibly being one or the other. IE one possible quantum computer design would be a particle that is hit by another particle and when it is hit could be either charged or not charged, with a fifty percent chance of either. However because it is not observed, it is technically both. But that is a matter of perception, not reality. I would please like a physical example of how something haveing been percieved alters its properties. With light, I know that it can be both percieved as a wave and a particle, but that can be explained more by the fact that we don't know how light behaves and that it is infact behaving in the manner of something that has the properties of both.

And yes, it may be useful, but think through some more. If the laws of non contradiction etc break down, then you have to ask, what claim does science have on truth. What claim does anything have on truth? It has a claim on a set of rules which are useful, but if they are not founded upon something objective, then another. set of rules could be equally right. Could you accept that? Science ultimately, while useful in terms of technology etc, has no more truth than anything else that is completely random. If you break down the laws of non contradiction, all the science in history is no more "right" than the suggestion that the universe is in fact a tenis ball, stuck inside a large siliocn based dolfin like creature who swims in egg white all day.

[Sithdarth]

"Do we actually know for certain that they are moving in and out of existance, or are they simply moving into a state which we cannot observe or account for with current methods?"

Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It makes a lot more sense to postulate things popping into and out of existence then to postulate a strange states which removes the particle from interacting in anyway with anything. It'd have to be a state that removed all gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. Further, there is nothing in quantum theory to suggest that this state exists. Finally, if such a state even did exist what would it matter because anything in said state would cease to exist for this universe and such a state would be completely unprovable.

"A friend of mine who is an expert in Quantum mechanics essentially informs me that a Qbit is not actually both at the same time but is actually a matter of posibly being one or the other. IE one possible quantum computer design would be a particle that is hit by another particle and when it is hit could be either charged or not charged, with a fifty percent chance of either. However because it is not observed, it is technically both. But that is a matter of perception, not reality. I would please like a physical example of how something haveing been percieved alters its properties. With light, I know that it can be both percieved as a wave and a particle, but that can be explained more by the fact that we don't know how light behaves and that it is infact behaving in the manner of something that has the properties of both."

Your friend is misunderstanding what he has learned is all. Yes in quantum mechanics we talk of probabilities because Quantum Mechanics is non-deterministic. These probabilities, or possibilities, are still real physical things despite being governed by the underlying unphysical wave function. An electron can have a 50 percent chance of being spin up and a 50 percent chance of being spin down. Until one can say for sure which it is the electron isn't switching from one to the other it is literally both at the same time. That is to say we can physically comprehend how this might happen but we know it has to physically happen. This experiment would be an unbelievably perfect example. But there others mostly about the probabilities of the outcome of measurements of spatially separated entangled things. In which case the only way to account for the experimental results is a superposition of states.

"And yes, it may be useful, but think through some more. If the laws of non contradiction etc break down, then you have to ask, what claim does science have on truth. What claim does anything have on truth? It has a claim on a set of rules which are useful, but if they are not founded upon something objective, then another. set of rules could be equally right. Could you accept that? Science ultimately, while useful in terms of technology etc, has no more truth than anything else that is completely random. If you break down the laws of non contradiction, all the science in history is no more "right" than the suggestion that the universe is in fact a tenis ball, stuck inside a large siliocn based dolfin like creature who swims in egg white all day."

Science can lay claim to truth because science make predictions that anyone can go out a verify for themselves. It may seem to lack of a perfectly objective reality destroys any hope of meaningful conversation but it doesn't. There can still be things that while not purely objective are objective enough to allow for reasoned debate. There is such a thing as limited subjectivity, a certain range of possibilities that something must conform to based open what is observable. This can be the basis for truth and discourse because while it doesn't provide a firm rigid structure it does define boundaries that must be respected and maintained. Boundaries which allow people to make

[Vertigo_One]

"Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It makes a lot more sense to postulate things popping into and out of existence then to postulate a strange states which removes the particle from interacting in anyway with anything"

I'd disagree on that one. There are many situations where things can stop interacting with anything else. There are no other situations where things simply cease to exist. I'm sorry but unless you can go further with this, I'm not going to accept your logic that it is possible for things to simply cease to exist and bring themselves into existance again. A simpler explaination is that they cannot be percieved. Its much simpler to say if something is not visible that it is consealed rather than it doesnt exist.

"It'd have to be a state that removed all gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions. Further, there is nothing in quantum theory to suggest that this state exists. Finally, if such a state even did exist what would it matter because anything in said state would cease to exist for this universe and such a state would be completely unprovable."

Maybe it moves into another universe? Or into an undetectable inactive state...the point is you cannot prove me wrong because you cannot conduct an experiment as you have said. All of this is maths and theory. It is not physical experimentation of the kind you would need to objectively say "There are things popping in and out of existance"

"Until one can say for sure which it is the electron isn't switching from one to the other it is literally both at the same time."

Thats rediculous. So up untill we were able to know, the Earth was actually flat? The fact that you don't know something does not mean that it is both things simultaniously.

Wave particle duality, which your example talks about, can be explained much better, and far more simply, by the notion that actually it is behaving in a way that can be observed in the form of a wave and can be observed in the form of a particle, but is not more than one thing at once. It is just one thing which can be observed in more than one way. Its far simpler to say that it is simply one complex state than it is to say that its an even more complex blend of two states. We don't know what this state is, but as of yet I see no physical evidence that demonstrates that my idea of one single state which is multipally observable is any diffrent to Quantum theory here.

"Science can lay claim to truth because science make predictions that anyone can go out a verify for themselves"

You've missed the point I'm making. Yes, science indeed can make these predictions etc, but if your arguing (as indeed you are with the quantum stuff) that in fact the laws of logic break down, then the values of predictions are no longer relevent. Because if non contradiction is not absolute, then getting a prediction wrong has equal value. I'm agreeing with you, in so far as science is indeed valuable and is indeed useful, but if your arguing that non-contradiction and all the other laws of logic are in fact reletive, then what is to stop me claiming that they are reletive in the case of science etc...