Hakluyt's Voyages.......

[Hakluyt]

........just in case anyone fancies continuing them.

We were, I think, discussing the issue around dating dinosaur bones........among other things.

So - what is it?

Could you spell it out. Or perhaps one of the other atheists could do it for you? Any takers?

Frustrated- what has this got to do with God?

BogDorrit - do you have any idea what Cotdazurs' point is?

"'these things do not obey the physical laws of the universe (as we know them) therefore logic is fallible.' Is this your point?"

Of course not.

"These things" are the physical laws of the universe.

Now tell me if they fit with your logic.

I'm waiting to find out Hakluyt. I've just asked Cotedazur why these examples have been brought to the atheism debate. It seems I am not the only one who does not know the point he or she is trying to make.

'Speed of light is constant for every observer. However fast you travel, you will always see light to be travelling at the same speed.

(2) Re Double-slit experiment that shows light behaves as a wave. You still get the wave pattern when one photon is sent out, meaning it goes through both slits at the same time.

'These things are the physical laws of the universe.'

These..specific examples.. are the laws of the universe?

Are you saying that these examples prove that one plus one may not equal two? This is the argument I was asking people to make earlier, in one of the first posts on this thread.

What is it then, BigDorrit, if you're so clever. Articulate. If you can. 'And it has as much to do with the existence or otherwise of a god as your posts. I.e. none.' And yet Cotedazur must have brought it to the debate for a reason. I'm trying to find out what that reason is.

No, I'm pretty sure you are the only one.

You claim that the only logical explanation for the universe is "Something must be eternal". Obviously you believe that the workings of our universe must be following our human logic (a product of our experiences with human scale interactions on Earth).

You clearly don't realise that the fabric of the universe and its laws at quantum level are not terribly logical. Well, they do have a logic but it is definitely not binary and not what would be instinctive to us.

Can you at least try to answer my questions?

(1) Is it logical that the speed of light is constant?

(2) Is it logical that one single photon can pass through two slits at the same time?

"These..specific examples.. are the laws of the universe? "

Yes. Speed of light is constant. That is one of the basic laws of our universe.

Get that one through your head before I go on to the others.

You really need to educate yourself if you intend to talk to people about the nature of the universe and the "logic" behind it

No, I'm really not. Hakluyt, for a start. BigDorrit, apparently.

I don't know why you are asking me these questions. If you say they are illogical I will readily agree. But what does that prove? What does it show? What does that bring to the table?

Are you saying that it shows that the possibility exists that one plus one may not equal two, or that zero plus zero may equal one? These are not sarcastic questions.

There are other questions I can ask you, like "Is it logical that you get shorter as you travel faster?" but I fear your head would just explode

Yes I know - but you said these specific examples where light behaves in unexpected ways are the physical laws of the universe.

I don't know why you are asking me these questions. If you say they are illogical I will readily agree. But what does that prove? What does it show? What does that bring to the table?

Are you saying that it shows that the possibility exists that one plus one may not equal two, or that zero plus zero may equal one? These are not sarcastic questions.

Do you have a chip on your shoulder about something Cotedazur?

"If you say they are illogical I will readily agree. But what does that prove?"

That proves you are hereby accepting that the universe does not always obey your logic.

Therefore you contradict and disprove your earlier argument that there must be something eternal in the universe because it would otherwise be illogical.

Checkmate.

'Because you have decided that the universe must conform to your bizarre binary option.'

BigDorrit can you explain the grounds for calling it bizarre?

'You came on to a thread about respect hoping to basically say "all atheists are stupid because they say X or Y in my binary universe".

No I didn't.

'The fact that, apart from your alter ego (bit desperate, BD), everyone has said that your premise is, in fact, false in the first place would suggest to anyone with a modicum of self awareness that their theory may not be entirely watertight.'

There was a time when everyone said the sun went round the earth. Verily democratic agreement is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for truth.

'Cote is merely showing you that the laws of nature are not completely understood yet'

Well blow me down

and often show contrary properties, so claiming to have, dare I say, a divine knowledge of the universe, is patently both arrogant and ignorant.'

I don't claim any such thing.

And on that note, I'm off to bed. This was beginning to feel like kicking a puppy, anyway.

Frustrated - Don't feel too bad. Think of it as a learning experience. Anyway, you can always namechange and nobody will know that you are that 13-year-old who tried to patronise those mums over on MN and instead got twisted into a knot.

Sleep well

'That proves you are hereby accepting that the universe does not always obey your logic.

It's not my logic.

'Therefore you contradict and disprove your earlier argument that there must be something eternal in the universe because it would otherwise be illogical.'

No - not at all. You need to go much further.

The binary possibility I posited is that there is something eternal or there is not something eternal.

I take it you don't have an argument with that? I don't see one here.

From the above, I gather that your argument is with the statement that something cannot come from nothing.

Am I right so far?

Frustrated, I didn't follow the last thread closely (and this thread is already down a rabbit hole). But one thing I've noticed is that you confuse 'thing that is illogical' with 'thing I can't get my head around.'

It's fair enough. I can't get my head around most of it either. I love that physics can be such a giant philosophical mindfuck and I choose to embrace the bits I can't get my head around and trying to understand how things that seem impossible or contradictory can be true.

The point people are making is that your insistence on the principle of eternality being the only logical option is itself illogical.

Cotedazur: You still need to explain how you have shown that existence can come out of non-existence.

Your view is limited: for example earlier you said the reason it's wrong to say existence cannot come from non-existence, is because particles can and do appear spontaneously. But you know that such particles did not come out of absolute non-existence: this is something you did not even try to rebut when I pointed it out. It's a very limited argument, possibly based on Sixth Form modules, and your latest offering seems similar. Knowing a little, thinking one understands a great deal more, can lead one into a rather unimpressive display of hubris.

This is why you need to make a case that the behaviour of light under certain conditions shows not what BigDorrit described - simply that that 'the laws of nature are not completely understood yet' - but something more.

You would need to show that the behaviour of light under these conditions means that under certain (unknowable) conditions, one plus one may not equal two.

Do you understand that?