Editing Proof by logic
From Religions Wiki
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
* That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc. | * That in reality, it's an endless cycle of universes, etc. | ||
This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend Newtonian mechanics into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break. | This argument cannot possibly work, because it relies on assumptions being plugged into the required logical premises. The fact is, we have little to no information about what happened "before" the big bang, or even have a complete understanding of causality beyond our simplified Earthly understanding of how things work. Just like we couldn't extend [[Newtonian mechanics]] into approaching-the-speed-of-light speeds, we aren't justified in extending our current laws of physics into the extremes, as discussed in this argument, where the laws break. | ||
Arguably, the premises must be justified by additional arguments, and so on, causing an [[infinite regress]] per the [[Münchhausen trilemma]]. The alternative sources of premise validity are axiomatic assumptions or based on perceptual experience (psychologism). | Arguably, the premises must be justified by additional arguments, and so on, causing an [[infinite regress]] per the [[Münchhausen trilemma]]. The alternative sources of premise validity are axiomatic assumptions or based on perceptual experience (psychologism). |