Ask an atheist

Hmmm, so you don't find any of the first two in the Bible?

Have you read any Biblical Concordists who do see major scientific discoveries in the Bible?

As for the last two, you need real scientific proof God exists, I'm guessing? You need a real touch, or a real survey that proves prayer works?

Are the Biblical stories real history?

Was Jesus a real person?

When do you think the Bible was written? (what is the history of it?)

(btw, haha at the "brain explode" part. Science does that at times. (or scientific theories...))

So yes, I can definitely grant that all things in our universe require a cause according to science. But to then extrapolate that and apply it to things outside of or before our universe to conclude that absolutely the universe must have been caused isn't something I can necessarily agree to, because we have no way of knowing whether the laws of cause and effect would apply

Surely whatever led to a world where one cause leads to an effect worked by the law of cause and effect. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

Further, while perhaps nothing prevents there being a thing or place before the universe where things weren't caused, nothing we have suggests that. On the contrary, the data we have says all things are caused. To say that things might have worked that way while science says nothing works that way and indeed things cannot work that way seems rather a shaky claim.

Isaiah the Ox wrote:Hmmm, so you don't find any of the first two in the Bible?

Have you read any Biblical Concordists who do see major scientific discoveries in the Bible?

As for the last two, you need real scientific proof God exists, I'm guessing? You need a real touch, or a real survey that proves prayer works?

Are the Biblical stories real history?

Was Jesus a real person?

When do you think the Bible was written? (what is the history of it?)

(btw, haha at the "brain explode" part. Science does that at times. (or scientific theories...))

I don't. 

I have seen a few of those kinds of things. And I've yet to read anything that didn't just seem like a giant, huge, leaping stretch. I don't know if they were written by concordists, though. 

Not necessarily. I think some of the stories have roots in historical events but I don't consider all of the bible stories to be historical fact. 

I don't really see any reason to think he wasn't, although the evidence for his existence is kind of slim. 

I don't remember specifics of things like dates and whatnots very well at all. I'd only be Googling for scholarly material or referencing my college textbooks to answer this question. Different parts of the bible were written at different times and there are definitely biblical and historical scholars out there who can answer this question a whole lot better.

Pound Cake wrote:
Surely whatever led to a world where one cause leads to an effect worked by the law of cause and effect. The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

The point is we just don't know what happened to cause our universe, if it was caused, or what existed before it. Science at this point has zero intel on that. And because the laws of our universe only apply to our universe, we cannot definitively say that YES FOR SURE our universe was caused visa vis the laws of cause and effect because we have literally no way of knowing at this point whether those laws would be the same outside of or before our universe. You are making leaps here by applying the laws of our universe to things outside of it when there is no way of knowing if that would be the case. 

Pound Cake wrote:
Further, while perhaps nothing prevents there being a thing or place before the universe where things weren't caused, nothing we have suggests that.

OK, but nothing we have suggests the laws of cause and effect applied before our universe because we have no knowledge of what existed before our universe. 

Pound Cake wrote:
On the contrary, the data we have says all things are caused.

Again, this "data we have" ONLY APPLIES to our universe as we know it. We don't have data on anything before our universe or outside of it. 

Pound Cake wrote:
To say that things might have worked that way while science says nothing works that way and indeed things cannot work that way seems rather a shaky claim.

Ugh. I'm not sure how many different ways I can say this or how many times I can repeat it. Science HAS NO CLAIMS about things that came before our universe or outside our universe or what "caused" our universe (there might be hypothesis and models but we are a long, long way from science knowing much about what happened before our universe). And that's all I'm saying. It has no claims. There are non. So to make a definitive claim that yes definitely no doubt the laws of cause and effect applied before our universe existed is not possible. And I'm not comfortable with making that definitive claim. To just assume with no other evidence that the laws observed in our universe also apply beyond our universe is far more shaky in my opinion than just saying "we don't know."

TL;DR My claim is that there is no claim because we have zero knowledge of what came before our universe. I'm not sure how refusing to make a claim that's based on no evidence is "shaky."

ETA: Also, this is why I quasi-granted your claim in my previous post so you could move on with whatever line of reasoning you wanted to bring me down and we didn't get bogged down in this. Are you not OK with agreeing to this as a starting point?:

If all things in the universe (as we currently understand it) require a cause according to science, and therefore (our universe and the things within it) cannot go infinitely backward. There (may) have been something (or somethings) outside of (our scientific understanding) that caused the universe.  Something (or somethings) in an entirely different realm.
(if we are defining 'different realm' as 'not our universe)

We can use that as a starting point, sure. You granted the universe, quote, "may" have a cause. You stated your reasons why you it only may have had one. So we are trying to remove that may. If that bothers you too much, perhaps we can move on, but for now the arguments below are my reply.

You claim whatever is outside of the universe may be outside of logic and the laws of science. But isn't that a skeptical threat argument? The problem with this type of argument it's indefensible- the only you can defend the claim is through logic, but the claim is that logic doesn't apply to a certain setting or may not exist in a certain setting.

Further, to claim whatever came before the Big Bang might be unlike our own in its ways and science seems to violate the metaphysical principle. That is, that logical laws are universal, existing across all universes and existence. To claim logic doesn't exist across all existence requires a hefty burden of proof.

Pound Cake wrote:We can use that as a starting point, sure. You granted the universe, quote, "may" have a cause. You stated your reasons why you it only may have had one. So we are trying to remove that may. If that bothers you too much, perhaps we can move on, but for now the arguments below are my reply.

It might be best to move on, if you can continue with your points based on that not being definitive, because I probably won't ever be convinced to make definitive statements based on no evidence.

However, I suppose I'd also be willing to grant your original claim for the sake of this discussion with the understanding I don't actually agree with it the way it's written. But I suppose there isn't any reason not to follow it through to its conclusion.

Pound Cake wrote:You claim whatever is outside of the universe may be outside of logic and the laws of science. But isn't that a skeptical threat argument?

Ok. No. Not exactly. I have first off made no claims Re: logic. Logic and science aren't the same thing. I have claimed that whatever happened "before" our universe began falls outside of our current scientific understanding. Because it does. Please point to scientific evidence of what came before our universe if this is not the case. I'm also saying we cannot claim that it would necessarily follow our current laws of thermodynamics because we have no evidence to suggest that laws based only on our observations of our universe would apply to anything outside of that universe as we currently have no way to test or know whether they would apply before our universe. I am NOT making a definitive claim either way on this. I'm not saying the laws would definitely not apply, I'm saying we can't say for sure one way or the other because we have no evidence either way to suggest anything and I am not comfortable just assuming things.  (Hence the "may" in the wording of the claim)

Pound Cake wrote:The problem with this type of argument it's indefensible- the only you can defend the claim is through logic, but the claim is that logic doesn't apply to a certain setting or may not exist in a certain setting.

Again I have made no claims regarding logic, lol. This isn't an argument based on logic, it's an argument based on scientific evidence. I thought we were talking about the laws of thermodynamics in science? That isn't logic. It might be more useful if we didn't conflate terms. YOU are the one making the definitive claim that the laws of thermodynamics would apply outside of our universe. But those laws are only based on our observable universe. So yes, I am saying we cannot make the definitive claim that Thing A that we have ONLY OBSERVED in Sphere A, would necessarily exist in Sphere B when we have literally no evidence of Sphere B. Again, this is science we are talking about. Scientific claims are made via the scientific method and ultimately based on evidence. They aren't based on logic. What is logical isn't always true or scientifically accurate. Logic is a branch of philosophy and does not equal science or the scientific method.

Example:
All creatures on four legs are reptiles.
Cats walk on four legs.
Cats are reptiles.

That statement is valid logically, but we know it is not true.

Pound Cake wrote:That is, that logical laws are universal, existing across all universes and existence. To claim logic doesn't exist across all existence requires a hefty burden of proof.

Again this discussion isn't about logic, as I outlined above. It's about science and scientific evidence. I'm claiming that the scientific evidence we have, which is based only on observations of our universe do not necessarily apply outside of that universe. And we cannot claim for sure that they do because there is no evidence to suggest that.

Can you please define the "laws of logic" you mention? And you do understand the laws of logic serve as the basis for logical thought not as the basis for the laws of science? Because I get the feeling there is just a massive misunderstanding going on between us in regard to science v. logic. You so far have not presented any scientific evidence that the laws of our universe would apply outside of or before it (which isn't your fault because scientists literally have been unable to get to that point with formulas, algorithms or models). All you've said is that "it's logical" or that "we can assume" and the like. And as in my example above, because something is logically valid does NOT mean it is true or scientifically valid. The two concepts aren't the same thing.

Sorry. Jumping from science to logic was too abrupt and did indeed require explanation.
To define laws of logic, logic is by nature a process, right? That is, one thing leading to another right? So how could logic even exist in a, let's call it, Causeless Universe. How could logic, a process, exist in a Causeless Universe? As you say, "All creatures on four legs are reptiles. 
Cats walk on four legs. 
Cats are reptiles.")
 Each claim rests on the other, each causes the other exist. Plus, even before the process of logic itself, logic comes from a question. That is, the chain of reasoning results from, is caused by, a question. Further, even before that, logical thought is caused by activity in our frontal lobe which is cause by neurons and so forth. Logic itself is cause and effect. So that's why your argument sounds like skeptical threat.

Still though, looking into this online, it may as well be admitted, it looks like you're probably right. The universe may require a cause and may not. That's not to concede just yet, it would still be interesting to see how you answer the above, but we might have to proceed with that, "may."