Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

In what sense does the law of non-contradiction apply to the universe rather than to statements ?Given that sense how can it have a source ?

quote:

---

What is illogical about it?

---

You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

I'm not arguing that quantum fluctuations can't exist without a cause, I am arguing that there is an underlying cause. Why is there an underlying cause? Because QM still has some problems that seem to indicate it is an incomplete theory.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

In every sense. What do you mean?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

What do you mean "in every sense" ? To what other than statements CAN a semantic rule like the law of non-contradiction apply ?And the question of how the law of non-contradiction could have a source seems clear enough - how could such a source operate ? How do you avoid getting trapped in a vicious circularity ?

GN Yes,you,a material being,can affect a material
item that is outside your existence.However the problem is how a god who is outside of our material world and is thereby immaterial is able to affect the material.

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

Yes - something is wrong with relativity as well.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

No, I am asking what is illogical about pointing out that QM has some problems and therefore something is probably going on that we don't know about?

God speaks and it happens. He can do it because it is in his power to do it.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

How about a star cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way? The source is the nature of God. I guess you could say it operates because God operates.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

You mean that the statements " exists" and " does not exist" cannot both be true unless the identification of the star or the understanding of existence are different (i.e. there are differneces in semantic content of the statements other than the fact that the latter contains a negation).
It's all about statements and the meaning of negation. Haven't you noticed that the law of the excluded middle is often not applied in natural language ? But that law is as fundamental to simple predicate logic as non-contradiction.

​

I suggest that you consider wave-particle duality, understand why it is not a contradiction and see for yourself how we would resolve "contradictions" in reality.

​

And you still aren't explaining how a source of "non-contradiction" is even possible or how it could work. Maybe in the circles you travel in "God does it" is an adequate answer - even though it is more of an evasion than an answer. It isn't here.

General Nazort Do you see how such a statement does not bring any clarity to the issue? You believe that such is the case I am sure,however,what do you mean by this? How does god speak?I hear these comparisons over and over again between god and humans but such does not make sense.
You say that god is nothing like us yet {immaterial} yet you imbue him with qulities like speech {material} and then merely say that it happens because he can do it.How do you know this? Yes by contradicting the very laws of physics and leaving no trace. I am sorry if I seem dense to you but these statements are meaningless in that they do not address the issue of how such a thing is done.We can say such things without qualification as long as we do not press ourselves to explain this absurdity to ourselves.

---

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

God is like us in some ways - we are made in his image after all. God is a person, and we reflect this in being persons as well - people who can think, talk, have emotions, etc. And while we have physical bodies, we also have "immaterial" spiritual souls. So you are saying that God cannot have the innate quality of being able to create the material universe?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

Yes, Yes, The law of the excluded middle is that for any proposition P, it is true that P is true or not P is not true, right? I agree that this is not a contradiction - light acts like a wave AND acts like a particle. If something is truly a contradiction it cannot be resolved... How would you explain it, in the circles you travel?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

With regard to the law of the excluded middle you have it correctly. However it is frequently not used in normal speech (e.g. "I do not beleive that God exists" often means "I do not beleive that God exists" - in a formal two-valued logic this violates the law of the excluded middle).With regard to wave-particle duality there is a contradiction between the behaviour of a particle and that of a wave. That is, light must formally speaking be neither but instead something that bheaves in some ways like both. And this points again to logic being an issue of semantics, since the resolution of the contradiction is to point out that light neither fully fits the definition of a wave nor of a particle.As to the idea of "non-contradiction" having a source I wouldn't even try to explain it. I reject the idea on the grounds that it makes no sense to me. That's why I asked you fro your explanation to see if you had thought of something I'd missed.