Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[Cordoba]

Greetings to all:

Why should everything around us be made, have a cause or builder, whereas our universe just happens to exist, as some people claim, just by coincidence?

There are a number of logical arguments for and against the existence of a Creator. This article follows reason and logic to answer the question "Does God exist?":
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason01.htm

Logically-speaking, should the universe have a Creator?
What do you think?

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Well, what do modern theists base their theories for creation on?- an old book, a lack of a truly exhaustive scientific explanation, or a combination of both or more? Science is magic until it is proven to be science- ask those just 400- 300 years ago that believed demons or witches caused sickness or destroyed crops now proven to be fools, it's really no different when you look at it.

 

[Majikthise]

It's just the watch again.(Yawn).

 

[No*s]

Greetings to all:

Why should everything around us be made, have a cause or builder, whereas our universe just happens to exist, as some people claim, just by coincidence?

There are a number of logical arguments for and against the existence of a Creator. This article follows reason and logic to answer the question "Does God exist?":
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason01.htm

Logically-speaking, should the universe have a Creator?
What do you think?

TranceAm has already given a nice answer to this and would receive frubals from me, but I've already given him/her frubals today.

Logic is ruled by presuppositions, and when we look at the world, we will interpret the it on the basis of those presuppositions. In this case, both answers are perfectly logical.

 

[Cordoba]

The logic of Cause and Effect is straight-forward and does not need to be complicated.
Each thing/event/creature has a cause which made it come into existence.

The one exception to this rule is the Creator Himself, as He is Eternal, meaning He is The First Cause, The Necessary Being.

<< If it was created from something, there is more of that something unless there was only the creator and he made it using as recource the "material" >>

Could the universe have been created out of nothing?

Creating from "something" only means a transformation of raw materials from one state to another. Whereas creating "without raw materials" is what real creation is all about, which only the Eternal Creator can do.

 

[No*s]

Thank you for those credits. After rereading my piece I noticed there was a part missing that should be included.

I wrote:
"The point then becomes for every entity with awareness "Do I need universe to have a creator as explanation or should according to me the universe have a creator as explanation?" To which every individual can answer to him/her self according to his own concious and/or unconciousness."

This contained an error "Do I need universe.." But the written statement as was gave a new insight. It needed to be "Do I need the universe...."

The questions that arose by the mistake were:
Do I need the universe as an reason for the existance of a creator?
What other reason can I come up with for the existance of a creator?

For the life of me, I can't come up with any other reason then creating the universe.

I haven't got much time, so I have to make this brief .

The logical arguments for the existence of God are:

1). Creation (I follow the thread's starter in seeing the universe fashioned from nothing)
2). C.S. Lewis' moral argument
3). Divine revelation
4). The ontological argument (which I consider bull)
5). Divine revelation

Outside of these, we are hard-pressed to make a logical argument. I discard 4 altogether.

 

[No*s]

The logic of Cause and Effect is straight-forward and does not need to be complicated.
Each thing/event/creature has a cause which made it come into existence.

The one exception to this rule is the Creator Himself, as He is Eternal, meaning He is The First Cause, The Necessary Being.

That's the problem with this being an airtight argument. Why do you assume the universe cannot be eternal? We cannot prove it either way. I, for one, believe that it cannot be, and thus, a creator, but logic hits a wall before I can conclusively prove it.

 

[Cordoba]

<< Why do you assume the universe cannot be eternal? >>

That used to be the assumption made till around 100 years ago.
Today we know that the universe is around 14 billion years old, which means it's not eternal.

 

[Irenicas]

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

 

[Pah]

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

Welcome back - actually the current theory, brought about by advances in telescopic study, says that the universe only expands and that when it is suffiently dispersed, it will die from a tempurature of 0 kelvin

 

[No*s]

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

Yes, but as Pah asserted, that has been called into doubt. If one works with this mindset, though, then there is no need for a creator.

It simply changes the presuppositions of the argument and no longer neccessitates a Creator. Everything is based on an assumed premise, including my view .

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

Welcome back...I think you might predate me, though, so we really haven't become acquainted .

 

[Majikthise]

Trance Am, This is the first time I have actually read through one of these long posts(my time on line is limited so i have to try to spread my brain around).This thing won't let me frubal you again right now but i'll wait it out.You have grabbed my intrest with this absolutely wonderful post,I only hope alot of members realy take the time to read and understand it fully.


Just a couple of questions from a layman.:help:
Energy into mass:electricity is caused by the passing of electrons from atom to another.Can energy exsist without matter toproduce it? Am i missing some other definition of energy?

Expansion/contraction of the universe:Could,do you think,the universe collapse in on itself over time the same way a sun becomes a black hole.


Finaly,why would a being who created all this be so concerned about what we do on this tiny speck of nothing.

If I have totally missed a point or said something totally ludicrous please excuse me.I have school coming up and iv'e been studying engine theory and diagnostics so my brain is a little overful.

thanks much, Dan

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Erm, no folks, there will not be a "big crunch". Recent studies have shown that not only is the universe still expanding, but the expansion is accelerating.

Furthermore, there is no reason that the big bang must have been caused by anything other than the nature of the cosmos...as one astronomer quoted in my textbook noted, the reason we have something instead of nothing is because " 'nothing' is unstable".

 

[Pah]

Is that proven now? I do know there are some problems estimating the age of the universe because of some red-shift issue of a star between us and a galaxy where the star is older then the galaxy, while both are moving away from us.

Proven? I don't know - but pictures taken by the WMAP (Wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe) represent "A rite of passage for cosmology from speculation to precision science" (John Bahcall) Source: Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku - himself, deeply involved in all the string theories)

The WMAP data indicates an age of the universe of 13.7 billion years old enough to include the formerly embarrasing age of stars at 12 billion years

Doesn't mass fall apart when loosing all its energy (0K), thus the need for space dissapears, thus the distortion of space by mass falls away, so the space needed to contain the universe actually shrinks? Until it reaches a volume of Zero. The energy will still be there, and then there is room, energy for a ReBang.

The universe is not shrinking but expanding. Mr_Spinkles is right

Reincarnation includes that it has to be able to continue eternal.

It seems the date disproves reincarnation then. It is amazing what science can do to faith.

 

[Pah]

I don't know that the Big Bang will go away. There is still the same event in M-Theory and inflation theory. The cause is more easily theorized in M-theory.

 

[Cordoba]

<< I don't know that the Big Bang will go away >>

Just a reminder that the main point here (which deviated discussion from the main topic) is not the details of the Big Bang theory, but rather the fact that the universe had a starting point, i.e. a beginning, 14 billion years ago.

This makes the universe not an eternal one.

Only the Creator who designed and caused the universe to come in existence is Eternal.

 

[Pah]

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

It was brought to my attention that a remark I made may have offended the poster of the Big Bang/Crunch cycle. I should point out that Michio Kaku is also a Buddhist. I think you will find from Kaku that the "problem" is solved by parallel universes where the rules in one do not necessarily apply to another. I have no idea what that does to a current faith in this universe but this universe will die.

 

[Majikthise]

It depends on what you mean by faith.I have faith that this planet will circle the sun once this year. I do not have faith that some mystical being will get me out of a jam if I follow his rules.

 

[No*s]

<< I don't know that the Big Bang will go away >>

Just a reminder that the main point here (which deviated discussion from the main topic) is not the details of the Big Bang theory, but rather the fact that the universe had a starting point, i.e. a beginning, 14 billion years ago.

This makes the universe not an eternal one.

Only the Creator who designed and caused the universe to come in existence is Eternal.

I agree with you on that. I'll also add that it seems this universe seems to be balanced so as to make life not just possible, but possibly inevitable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Just a reminder that the main point here (which deviated discussion from the main topic) is not the details of the Big Bang theory, but rather the fact that the universe had a starting point, i.e. a beginning, 14 billion years ago.

The word "beginning" can cause some confusion here: it implies that time was ticking for a while, then suddenly BANG! The universe "began".

In my understanding, this is not really the case. It would be more accurate to say that time is finite and points in one direction.