Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Backglass]

If matter has always existed, then how did it condense to the point of the Big Bang? Seems to defy the laws of physics that all the matter in the Universe would condense to a point that small, doesn't it?

"There are things we do not yet know about science" - OnlyAmbrose

We no longer call such things "supernatural" today because we now know them to be the result of perfectly natural phenomena.

Exactly.

But, since I as a theist hold that the laws of nature come from God, a supernatural being, looking into the nature of science is essentially just looking into a creation of God. I see nothing wrong with challenging and testing things in an ethical manner to discover more about the world around us and the laws that govern it.

Basically what I'm saying is that the natural is an extension of the supernatural. Take the example of weather you posed.

Humanity once thought that the path of the sun was a chariot riding through the sky. A work of God.

Now we know that the path of the sun is a result of the earth's gravitational orbit around the sun. But, since gravity is a work of God, the earth's orbit around the sun is still a work of God.

Of course, it's the easy out. And when the "supernatural" things you speak of are explained by science you again will say "Fine, but the workings that make them possible are a gods work"....and so on...and so on.

Gravity is just another example of something which is a mystery to scientists. Why do bodies of mass attract each other? They just do.

"There are things we do not yet know about science" - OnlyAmbrose

Hope that helps.

Not really. It just confirms what I already knew...that christians will go to great lengths to preserve their house of cards.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Of course, it's the easy out. And when the "supernatural" things you speak of are explained by science you again will say "Fine, but the workings that make them possible are a gods work"....and so on...and so on.

It's certainly not the easy out, it's valid philosophical reasoning.

Deciding whether or not there is a God is a leap of faith. There is no empirical evidence one way or the other.

Given that there is no valid evidence one way or the other, we are left with two possible conclusions about science:

1) If there is no God, then science is simply the way of nature. It's how things are just because. The laws governing the universe just came into being - or didn't come into being, but have always existed. In any case, discoveries in science are simply discoveries about the nature of the universe, which has no sentience whatsoever.

2) If there is a God, then that God is omnipotent and omniscient. By definition, whatever an omniscient being knows is true. God created the Universe and its laws - the laws of the universe are the result of God. Therefore, scientific discoveries tell us about the nature of the universe which was created by God.

Both sets of reasoning are perfectly valid, it just depends on what leap of faith you make.

Additionally, I'd like to bring this up:

Gravity is just another example of something which is a mystery to scientists. Why do bodies of mass attract each other? They just do.

"There are things we do not yet know about science" - OnlyAmbrose

I don't think that science will ever be able to explain the basic laws of physics such as gravity. They are just... the laws of physics.

We don't know WHY masses are attracted to each other, they just are.

We don't know WHY energy is conserved, it just is.

We don't know WHY matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just can't.

There is no scientific explanation for these laws because science is BASED on these laws. To explain them, something BEYOND nature is required. Something supernatural, if you will. Either that, or you simply concede that they are inexplainable, and exist just because, but that itself is a violation of cause and effect logic.

[unriggable]

It 'always' existed as that singularity (although time isn't really applicable).

Actually the universe if we use time begins with the big bang.

It is a proven fact that gravity slows down time. We know because clocks satellites that are identical to those down here on earth have to be adjusted to move slower so that they go at the same rate as ours.

So if gravity makes time go slower, an infinitely dense object goes infinitely slow, ie no time. Another thing creationists refuse to acknowledge - time is relative.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Another thing creationists refuse to acknowledge - time is relative.

I don't refuse to acknowledge it. Then again, a lot of Christians would hesitate to call me a creationist.

[unriggable]

Then again, a lot of Christians would hesitate to call me a creationist.

By the same token, a 'real christian'.

My dad was catholic - he left the idea of religion after he got a lot of shit for 'not being a real christian'.

[Balsiefen]

Since there have been a lot of really good arguments for the uncertancy of existence of a god, i'll repost this.

I've always thaught, if current scientific thery does prove to be wrong and religion is correct-Why should it be Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Arianism or a tiny and unknown religion which belonged to a small tribe by the amazon who were unfortunatly wiped out by their neighbors a thousand years ago. What gives any of these less credibility than christianity?

[comic boy]

Of course, it's the easy out. And when the "supernatural" things you speak of are explained by science you again will say "Fine, but the workings that make them possible are a gods work"....and so on...and so on.

It's certainly not the easy out, it's valid philosophical reasoning.

Deciding whether or not there is a God is a leap of faith. There is no empirical evidence one way or the other.

Given that there is no valid evidence one way or the other, we are left with two possible conclusions about science:

1) If there is no God, then science is simply the way of nature. It's how things are just because. The laws governing the universe just came into being - or didn't come into being, but have always existed. In any case, discoveries in science are simply discoveries about the nature of the universe, which has no sentience whatsoever.

2) If there is a God, then that God is omnipotent and omniscient. By definition, whatever an omniscient being knows is true. God created the Universe and its laws - the laws of the universe are the result of God. Therefore, scientific discoveries tell us about the nature of the universe which was created by God.

Both sets of reasoning are perfectly valid, it just depends on what leap of faith you make.

Additionally, I'd like to bring this up:

Gravity is just another example of something which is a mystery to scientists. Why do bodies of mass attract each other? They just do.

"There are things we do not yet know about science" - OnlyAmbrose

I don't think that science will ever be able to explain the basic laws of physics such as gravity. They are just... the laws of physics.

We don't know WHY masses are attracted to each other, they just are.

We don't know WHY energy is conserved, it just is.

We don't know WHY matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it just can't.

There is no scientific explanation for these laws because science is BASED on these laws. To explain them, something BEYOND nature is required. Something supernatural, if you will. Either that, or you simply concede that they are inexplainable, and exist just because, but that itself is a violation of cause and effect logic.

This latest round of debating started because Nappy Rash stated that God
was NOT an act of faith, glad that all the sensible posters now agree he is wrong

[Snorri1234]

What is actually inconceivable are god's traits. Infinity and omnipotency are something we can't wrap our minds around.

I think that's one of the theists mainstay arguments. "You just don't get it."

it's a mainstay argument of both sides.

When asked where matter came from, atheists simply say, "We just don't get it."

No, most of us say, "We just don't get it, yet."

[Neoteny]

What is actually inconceivable are god's traits. Infinity and omnipotency are something we can't wrap our minds around.

I think that's one of the theists mainstay arguments. "You just don't get it."

it's a mainstay argument of both sides.

When asked where matter came from, atheists simply say, "We just don't get it."

No, most of us say, "We just don't get it, yet."

As opposed to "Give up and leave it to god. We'll never know." How insulting.

[Guiscard]

Since there have been a lot of really good arguments for the uncertancy of existence of a god, i'll repost this.

I've always thaught, if current scientific thery does prove to be wrong and religion is correct-Why should it be Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Arianism or a tiny and unknown religion which belonged to a small tribe by the amazon who were unfortunatly wiped out by their neighbors a thousand years ago. What gives any of these less credibility than christianity?

Indeed. Thats something the theists have singularly failed to answer. If the logic runs true then it implies a creator, not a God...

[Balsiefen]

Since there have been a lot of really good arguments for the uncertancy of existence of a god, i'll repost this.

I've always thaught, if current scientific thery does prove to be wrong and religion is correct-Why should it be Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Arianism or a tiny and unknown religion which belonged to a small tribe by the amazon who were unfortunatly wiped out by their neighbors a thousand years ago. What gives any of these less credibility than christianity?

Indeed. Thats something the theists have singularly failed to answer. If the logic runs true then it implies a creator, not a God...

And seeing this thread is logic dictates god exists and not logic dictates a creater exists, i think one of our religious peoples should answer it-anyone up for it?

[WidowMakers]

Since there have been a lot of really good arguments for the uncertancy of existence of a god, i'll repost this.

I've always thaught, if current scientific thery does prove to be wrong and religion is correct-Why should it be Christianity? Why not Hinduism or Arianism or a tiny and unknown religion which belonged to a small tribe by the amazon who were unfortunatly wiped out by their neighbors a thousand years ago. What gives any of these less credibility than christianity?

Indeed. Thats something the theists have singularly failed to answer. If the logic runs true then it implies a creator, not a God...

And seeing this thread is logic dictates god exists and not logic dictates a creater exists, i think one of our religious peoples should answer it-anyone up for it?

I think as far as this debate is concerned, if logic dictates there is a creator who made everything in our universe (space and time) then he is beyond our comprehension since we are beings of the universe the creator made.

So I guess I don't really see the issue.

Webster Def:creator

• 1) one that creates usually by bringing something new or original into being;
  2) god

Webster Def:god

• 1) a: the supreme or ultimate reality
  b: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
  c: Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
  2) a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
  3) a person or thing of supreme value
  4) a powerful ruler

If logic dictates there is a creator who made everything in our universe (including us) then he is a god.

[Snorri1234]

If logic dictates there is a creator who made everything in our universe (including us) then he is a god.

A god. Not The God. And god could be anything.

[WidowMakers]

Proofs that God exists
http://www.carm.org/demo/God/proof.htm

Proofs for the existence of God have been offered by people through the centuries. We do not here claim that the follow proofs absolutely prove that God exists. But, we have not found or heard refutations sufficient to invalidate the arguments. We offer them to you as attempts to prove that God exists.

Finally, these arguments are not based on the Bible (though fulfilled prophecy is a strong indication of God's existence) because sometimes people do not accept the Bible. These arguments using logic can prove to be very valuable.

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  B. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

2) Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

• A. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

3) The universe could not have brought itself into existence.

• A. If something does not exist, it has no ability to perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.
  B. If it exists so as to be able to perform an action, then it already exists.

4) The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

5) All things that come into being have causes.

• A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.
  • i. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
    ii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
    iii. If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.

6) Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

• A. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
  • i. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
  B. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
  • i. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
    ii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
  C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
  • i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

7) This uncaused cause is supernatural.

• A. By supernatural we mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
  • i. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
    ii. This supernatural uncaused cause is God.

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind
  B. Logical absolutes are conceptual conventions.

3) The Laws of logic are not the product of the universe

• A. Logic is not a process of the universe
  B. Laws of Logic are not found "under rocks", or "inside atoms," etc. They are not related to physical properties.

4) The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds

• A. The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.
  B. The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

5) The Laws of logic are transcendent

• A. The laws of logic are not dependent upon the universe since they are true whether or not the universe exists.
  B. The laws of logic transcend space and time since they are true no matter where you go in the universe and they are true no matter when you exist in the universe.

6) The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

• A. Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
  B. Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

[WidowMakers]

If logic dictates there is a creator who made everything in our universe (including us) then he is a god.

A god. Not The God. And god could be anything.

I agree a god COULD be anything. But i still believe there is only 1 god, THE GOD.

What we are trying to show is that there is a creator. That is the first step to countering those people who say there is no such thing as a god, the GOD or a creator.

WM

[Backglass]

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.

Stop right there.

You are already assuming that we know everything there is to know about matter and energy. Why must it "run down"? Perhaps matter and energy never get old. I would counter and say the universe IS infinitely old and we do not yet understand matter and it's working.

This nullifies all further points.

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind

[/list]


blah blah blah

Yeah Yeah Yeah...I'm my own Grandpa and we are all related to Kevin Bacon in some manner. A lovely exercise that proves nothing.

Again right from A-ii you are assuming creation. I go with the theory that matter has always existed.

[heavycola]

Proofs that God exists
http://www.carm.org/demo/God/proof.htm

Proofs for the existence of God have been offered by people through the centuries. We do not here claim that the follow proofs absolutely prove that God exists. But, we have not found or heard refutations sufficient to invalidate the arguments. We offer them to you as attempts to prove that God exists.

Finally, these arguments are not based on the Bible (though fulfilled prophecy is a strong indication of God's existence) because sometimes people do not accept the Bible. These arguments using logic can prove to be very valuable.

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
  B. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.

2) Because the universe has had a beginning it is not infinite in size.

• A. It would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

3) The universe could not have brought itself into existence.

• A. If something does not exist, it has no ability to perform an action by which it can bring itself into existence.
  B. If it exists so as to be able to perform an action, then it already exists.

4) The universe was brought into existence by something other than itself.

5) All things that come into being have causes.

• A. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe (or past universes) were infinitely old. But, this would require an infinite amount of time to be traversed in order to arrive at the present. This cannot happen since an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed.
  • i. If the universe were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state unusable energy, which it is not.
    ii. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
    iii. If it were infinitely old, then in order for us to exist here and now, an infinite amount of time would have had to have been traversed in order to get here now. But, an infinity cannot be traversed.

6) Since the universe is finite and had a beginning and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe.

• A. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
  • i. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
  B. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
  • i. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit.
    ii. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
  C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
  • i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

7) This uncaused cause is supernatural.

• A. By supernatural we mean it is completely 'other' than the universe is not natural to it.
  • i. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural.
    ii. This supernatural uncaused cause is God.

OK to take some of your first premises (I am an amateur here, so please do correct me, as if anyone needed an invitation...):

3) I agree, the universe is not infinitely old. But to declare it unable to exist without prior cause is not an unchallengeable statement.
Quantum mechanics has shown that subatomic particles do indeed appear to wink in and out of existence. The pre-inflationary universe was of a subatomic size. Furthermore, the inflationary theory depends on - I THINK - a Higgs field attaining a certain, improbable value that would have produce an anti-gravitiational (repulsive) effect. In an unimaginably short time it caused expansion of the same order as a molecule of DNA swelling to the size of our galaxy. Note that here, there is no 'big bang' as such.

- The problem of infinite regress - come on, man! Seriously? You tack on a being of unimaginable complexity at the start and then declare that even though the pre-inflationary universe was nothing more complicated than pure energy, this being had no cause. If Paley's watchmaker theory supports the concept of a designer, what does it say about a superintelligent creator??

5) Yopur argument appears to ignore the question: what, then, is god's cause? The usual response - god had no cause - negates your argument in the first place.

C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

But in that case, your 'uncaused cause' cannot exist in time and space, but must remain outside it. How can somethign infinite in time and space exist within finite time and space? how can it exist with boundaries?


I don't have time to go on, but i will later if i get a response. or mayeb someoen else will pick up the baton.

[MeDeFe]

Entropy argument 6 (all of it) is debatable (in fact very much so), and has already been extensively debated on these very boards.
Entropy Argument 7.A.ii does not follow logically.


Logic argument
Claiming that logical laws require a mind is a stretch at best and utter nonsense at worst, I really don't see how you can logically reach that conclusion. Especially since you go on to say that the laws of logic are true whether the universe exists or not.

Now, one can certainly say that a mind is required to comprehend the laws of logic, but why would a mind be required for these laws to exist?

[WidowMakers]

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.

Stop right there.

You are already assuming that we know everything there is to know about matter and energy. Why must it "run down"? Perhaps matter and energy never get old. I would counter and say the universe IS infinitely old and we do not yet understand matter and it's working.

This nullifies all further points.

You are missing the point. "Run down" does not suggest the matter or energy are old. It is related to the 2nd law of thermodynamics Entropy. And again, Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system. SO if the universe was infinitely old, the universe would have already reached a point of equilibrium because it does not contain infinite matter and energy.

Also to say that "we do not yet understand matter and it's working" basically means that all of science is not valid. The laws of thermodynamics rely on th FACT that they are true. They have been proven to be and there is no reason to say that they are not going to be the same tomorrow.

By saying we don't understand it means we can't trust any facts/rules/equations based on our current knowledge because it might be wrong.

I also find it interesting that at least two posters that agree that creation is false, disagree on prinicples of the non creation universe. Both of you can't be right (the universe cannot be infinitley old and not infinitley old at teh same time).

So if I am wrong which one of you is right? Once you get that sorted out we can compare the creation argument to the non-creation one.

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind

[/list]


blah blah blah

Yeah Yeah Yeah...I'm my own Grandpa and we are all related to Kevin Bacon in some manner. A lovely exercise that proves nothing.

Again right from A-ii you are assuming creation. I go with the theory that matter has always existed.

So please tell me the answer to the questions:
1) Can A be A and not A at the same time? What?
2) Can something bring itself into existence? What?

WM

[Frigidus]

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind

blah blah blah

Yeah Yeah Yeah...I'm my own Grandpa and we are all related to Kevin Bacon in some manner. A lovely exercise that proves nothing.

Again right from A-ii you are assuming creation. I go with the theory that matter has always existed.

So please tell me the answer to the questions:
1) Can A be A and not A at the same time? What?
2) Can something bring itself into existence? What?

WM

Certainly A can't be A and not A. How does that prove God? I disagreed with you here:

6) The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

A. Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
B. Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

You start off well enough, that logic is absolute. Fair enough. Then you state that logic requires a mind to understand/affirm it's existence. Unfotunately that claim can't be made, as earlier you said:

4) The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds

A. The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.
B. The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

If logic doesn't depend on people why does it need something to affirm it? In fact if you did make the argument that logic does, in fact, need something to make it exist, humans would be the only logical solution. This line of reasoning, at least, falls short.

[WidowMakers]

NOTE: numbers edited for clearer answering

OK to take some of your first premises (I am an amateur here, so please do correct me, as if anyone needed an invitation...):

3) I agree, the universe is not infinitely old. But to declare it unable to exist without prior cause is not an unchallengeable statement.
Quantum mechanics has shown that subatomic particles do indeed appear to wink in and out of existence. The pre-inflationary universe was of a subatomic size. Furthermore, the inflationary theory depends on - I THINK - a Higgs field attaining a certain, improbable value that would have produce an anti-gravitational (repulsive) effect. In an unimaginably short time it caused expansion of the same order as a molecule of DNA swelling to the size of our galaxy. Note that here, there is no 'big bang' as such.

4)- The problem of infinite regress - come on, man! Seriously? You tack on a being of unimaginable complexity at the start and then declare that even though the pre-inflationary universe was nothing more complicated than pure energy, this being had no cause. If Paley's watchmaker theory supports the concept of a designer, what does it say about a super intelligent creator??

5) Your argument appears to ignore the question: what, then, is god's cause? The usual response - god had no cause - negates your argument in the first place.

C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

But in that case, your 'uncaused cause' cannot exist in time and space, but must remain outside it. How can something infinite in time and space exist within finite time and space? how can it exist with boundaries?


I don't have time to go on, but i will later if i get a response. or mayeb someoen else will pick up the baton.

3) OK. First of all sub atomic particle do appear to wink in and out of existence. Does this mean that they actually do? Just because they appear to does not make it so. If they leave our universe, where do they go? If they actually do leave there is no way to prove they do because we cannot perform tests outside of our universe.

Plus lets assume they do wink in and out. They can only wink in because there is something here. If nothing was here there would be no place to wink into. We can do these “studies” and test these theories because we are here and matter is here and space is here.

Subatomic particles have mass and space. To say they could randomly form in a space of nothing assumes we can comprehend and understand all of the principles of nothingness, which we can’t because we exist in something.

4) I guess I don’t understand you. This does not have anything to do with a creator. It explaining why the universe cannot be infinity old, why it cannot be infinity large and why infinity cannot be traversed.

It is only stating that things in our universe, things in our dimension as we know it cannot come into being by themselves. Material beings, matter, energy everything in our universe that is physical needs a cause because a universe of infinite size or age is impossible.

5) You are assuming that God is part of the universe he created. Which he is not because a creator cannot be part of its creation.

The causes listed above are for our universe, as we understand it. Or how causes relate to natural aspects of the. Since God must be outside the natural aspects of our universe to create it, he is outside the related causes of our universe.

Basically I am saying that if God exists, we cannot measure God or his attributes or existence because he is so far beyond our level of comprehension and outside our universe. Plus the physical laws and attributes of our universe do not dictate Him.

WM

[Snorri1234]

Also to say that "we do not yet understand matter and it's working" basically means that all of science is not valid. The laws of thermodynamics rely on th FACT that they are true. They have been proven to be and there is no reason to say that they are not going to be the same tomorrow.

Don't be silly. We haven't proven them to be true, we just haven't found a way to prove they aren't true. The basic explanation we have for HOW it works seems to explain everything at the moment, but that doesn't mean it's entirely true, it just means we haven't found a better one.

By saying we don't understand it means we can't trust any facts/rules/equations based on our current knowledge because it might be wrong.

No. We can trust them mainly because they seem to be working as explanations and otherwise we would have nothing, and I mean nothing, to be certain of in our lives.
Basically, don't trust them 100%.

[heavycola]

NOTE: numbers edited for clearer answering

OK to take some of your first premises (I am an amateur here, so please do correct me, as if anyone needed an invitation...):

3) I agree, the universe is not infinitely old. But to declare it unable to exist without prior cause is not an unchallengeable statement.
Quantum mechanics has shown that subatomic particles do indeed appear to wink in and out of existence. The pre-inflationary universe was of a subatomic size. Furthermore, the inflationary theory depends on - I THINK - a Higgs field attaining a certain, improbable value that would have produce an anti-gravitational (repulsive) effect. In an unimaginably short time it caused expansion of the same order as a molecule of DNA swelling to the size of our galaxy. Note that here, there is no 'big bang' as such.

4)- The problem of infinite regress - come on, man! Seriously? You tack on a being of unimaginable complexity at the start and then declare that even though the pre-inflationary universe was nothing more complicated than pure energy, this being had no cause. If Paley's watchmaker theory supports the concept of a designer, what does it say about a super intelligent creator??

5) Your argument appears to ignore the question: what, then, is god's cause? The usual response - god had no cause - negates your argument in the first place.

C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

But in that case, your 'uncaused cause' cannot exist in time and space, but must remain outside it. How can something infinite in time and space exist within finite time and space? how can it exist with boundaries?


I don't have time to go on, but i will later if i get a response. or mayeb someoen else will pick up the baton.

3) OK. First of all sub atomic particle do appear to wink in and out of existence. Does this mean that they actually do? Just because they appear to does not make it so. If they leave our universe, where do they go? If they actually do leave there is no way to prove they do because we cannot perform tests outside of our universe.

Plus lets assume they do wink in and out. They can only wink in because there is something here. If nothing was here there would be no place to wink into. We can do these “studies” and test these theories because we are here and matter is here and space is here.

Subatomic particles have mass and space. To say they could randomly form in a space of nothing assumes we can comprehend and understand all of the principles of nothingness, which we can’t because we exist in something.

4) I guess I don’t understand you. This does not have anything to do with a creator. It explaining why the universe cannot be infinity old, why it cannot be infinity large and why infinity cannot be traversed.

It is only stating that things in our universe, things in our dimension as we know it cannot come into being by themselves. Material beings, matter, energy everything in our universe that is physical needs a cause because a universe of infinite size or age is impossible.

5) You are assuming that God is part of the universe he created. Which he is not because a creator cannot be part of its creation.

The causes listed above are for our universe, as we understand it. Or how causes relate to natural aspects of the. Since God must be outside the natural aspects of our universe to create it, he is outside the related causes of our universe.

Basically I am saying that if God exists, we cannot measure God or his attributes or existence because he is so far beyond our level of comprehension and outside our universe. Plus the physical laws and attributes of our universe do not dictate Him.

WM

3) I am out of my depth when it comes to quantum physics, as I am sure most of us on here are. You are out of kilter here, but I am not confident enough to explain why. This sounds like a cop-out, I know... read A Brief Histroy of Time instead

4) My point was: You say everything has to have a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause. You go on to say that cause was an incredibly complex intelligence - my point is that it is then ridiculous to say that this rule of causation does not stop at a subatomic singularity but at this super-intelligent being.
The argument from design - try applying that to this 'creator'.

5) Well either god is a part of this universe, bound by temporality, or he is outside and has nothing to do with it. If the former, how could he have created it?

[WidowMakers]

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind

blah blah blah

Yeah Yeah Yeah...I'm my own Grandpa and we are all related to Kevin Bacon in some manner. A lovely exercise that proves nothing.

Again right from A-ii you are assuming creation. I go with the theory that matter has always existed.

So please tell me the answer to the questions:
1) Can A be A and not A at the same time? What?
2) Can something bring itself into existence? What?

WM

1)Certainly A can't be A and not A. How does that prove God? I disagreed with you here:

6) The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

A. Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
B. Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

2)You start off well enough, that logic is absolute. Fair enough. Then you state that logic requires a mind to understand/affirm it's existence. Unfotunately that claim can't be made, as earlier you said:

4) The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds

A. The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.
B. The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

If logic doesn't depend on people why does it need something to affirm it? In fact if you did make the argument that logic does, in fact, need something to make it exist, humans would be the only logical solution. This line of reasoning, at least, falls short.

1) You are taking this out of context. No single on of these statements is meant to stand on its own in regards to this issue. You must look at all of them and use them together to argue the case.

What do you disagree with?
1) laws of logic are:

• a)conceptual
  b)absolute
  c)transcendent

2) conceptual realities require a mind
3) conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them

2)I simply stated that logic requires a mind. That does not mean the mind of a human.

Do you agree: The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists?

So by looking at #1 and #2 together.
-Concepts REQUIRE a mind
-Logic requires a mind
-Logic is not depended on a human mind.

There MUST be another mind? The creators mind.

WM

[WidowMakers]

NOTE: numbers edited for clearer answering

OK to take some of your first premises (I am an amateur here, so please do correct me, as if anyone needed an invitation...):

3) I agree, the universe is not infinitely old. But to declare it unable to exist without prior cause is not an unchallengeable statement.
Quantum mechanics has shown that subatomic particles do indeed appear to wink in and out of existence. The pre-inflationary universe was of a subatomic size. Furthermore, the inflationary theory depends on - I THINK - a Higgs field attaining a certain, improbable value that would have produce an anti-gravitational (repulsive) effect. In an unimaginably short time it caused expansion of the same order as a molecule of DNA swelling to the size of our galaxy. Note that here, there is no 'big bang' as such.

4)- The problem of infinite regress - come on, man! Seriously? You tack on a being of unimaginable complexity at the start and then declare that even though the pre-inflationary universe was nothing more complicated than pure energy, this being had no cause. If Paley's watchmaker theory supports the concept of a designer, what does it say about a super intelligent creator??

5) Your argument appears to ignore the question: what, then, is god's cause? The usual response - god had no cause - negates your argument in the first place.

C. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.

i. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.

But in that case, your 'uncaused cause' cannot exist in time and space, but must remain outside it. How can something infinite in time and space exist within finite time and space? how can it exist with boundaries?


I don't have time to go on, but i will later if i get a response. or mayeb someoen else will pick up the baton.

3) OK. First of all sub atomic particle do appear to wink in and out of existence. Does this mean that they actually do? Just because they appear to does not make it so. If they leave our universe, where do they go? If they actually do leave there is no way to prove they do because we cannot perform tests outside of our universe.

Plus lets assume they do wink in and out. They can only wink in because there is something here. If nothing was here there would be no place to wink into. We can do these “studies” and test these theories because we are here and matter is here and space is here.

Subatomic particles have mass and space. To say they could randomly form in a space of nothing assumes we can comprehend and understand all of the principles of nothingness, which we can’t because we exist in something.

4) I guess I don’t understand you. This does not have anything to do with a creator. It explaining why the universe cannot be infinity old, why it cannot be infinity large and why infinity cannot be traversed.

It is only stating that things in our universe, things in our dimension as we know it cannot come into being by themselves. Material beings, matter, energy everything in our universe that is physical needs a cause because a universe of infinite size or age is impossible.

5) You are assuming that God is part of the universe he created. Which he is not because a creator cannot be part of its creation.

The causes listed above are for our universe, as we understand it. Or how causes relate to natural aspects of the. Since God must be outside the natural aspects of our universe to create it, he is outside the related causes of our universe.

Basically I am saying that if God exists, we cannot measure God or his attributes or existence because he is so far beyond our level of comprehension and outside our universe. Plus the physical laws and attributes of our universe do not dictate Him.

WM

3) I am out of my depth when it comes to quantum physics, as I am sure most of us on here are. You are out of kilter here, but I am not confident enough to explain why. This sounds like a cop-out, I know... read A Brief Histroy of Time instead

4) My point was: You say everything has to have a cause, and that the universe therefore has a cause. You go on to say that cause was an incredibly complex intelligence - my point is that it is then ridiculous to say that this rule of causation does not stop at a subatomic singularity but at this super-intelligent being.
The argument from design - try applying that to this 'creator'.

5) Well either god is a part of this universe, bound by temporality, or he is outside and has nothing to do with it. If the former, how could he have created it?

3) As am I. I was simple showing that there are issues in relying solely on this theory to "prove" naturalistic beginnings.

4) My point was that all things in our universe require a cause. Since the cause cannot exist in the universe that did not exist before the cause, the cause must exist outside of the universe. A creator is that cause.

You now say what is the cause of the creator.
And I say why does the creator need a cause if our understanding of cause and effect is based inside our universe. I.E. A creator exists outside of our universe/laws/facts so we cannot understand him or his ways.

Basically regardless of our understand of the creator, if the universe could not have come into existence by itself, something must have made it.

5) Again God cannot be part of this universe because he could not have created it. Lets put it this way. If God is part of the universe that means the natural laws of the universe also apply to God. Then everything we have said earlier requires God to have a cause and be finite.

And if that is the case we are right back to "well what was the cause for everything and God?" And by looking over what was talked about, the answer is something outside or universe. Something that cannot be contained within the laws of it or th minds of man.

So we are back to the fact that a creator needs to exist outside our our universe.