Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[Cordoba]

<< Are you posting this in the Abrahamic Religions in order to keep those with dissenting views out of the argument? >>

Not at all. All views are welcomed, as logical thinking is a shared human process.

All the best.

 

[Cordoba]

<< >He has no start and no end (He is The First and The Last), whereas everything else apart from Him has a start and an end, including our universe.

How do you know? How do you manage to go beyond believing, and claim that this is the only truth? >>

Because that's the difference between The Necessary Being and all other creatures. The Creator is Eternal and Self-Existent, which means He is not like us who have a start and an end. There is to Him no equivalent. He is The First without a start, and The Last without an end.

Let me ask you the same question: What does "Eternal" mean in your understanding?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think it would be best if I just remained outside of this discussion. It is in the Abrahamic Religions forum, and I don't wish to rock the boat. If a similar thread opens up in the Religious Debates forum, I'll participate.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Pah]

<< Science is also showing that the beginning may have rules apart from the mythical creator >>

If we do agree that the universe is not eternal, then as mentioned in the article on the first post, it's logical that:

QUOTE
the universe had a beginning means that the cosmos was brought into being out of nothing, that is, that it was created. If a created thing exists (which did not exist beforehand), then it certainly should have a Creator.
UNQUOTE

http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason02.htm

Would you agree?

No, I do not agree. The agent for creation of this universe could be contained in M-Theory and that would be a collision of branes.

 

[Cordoba]

In answer to the long post # 39:

While I agree with you that Divine Revelation would make it easier for us to understand God's attributes, this phase of logical thinking is meant for people who either doubt the authenticity of The Torah / The Bible / The Qur'an, or those who have not read them and would prefer to study the existence or non-existence of God first from a logical point of view before getting into details.

<< While I agree that God is not composed of parts, I think you've overstepped your logic. How do you know that God isn't a universe contained in Himself, and that our universe popped up out of His core universe: that ours is a derivative? You can't. >>

I don't think this question is related to the logical attribute of God not being composed of parts. All what is not "The Necessary Being" is created by Him, and as such can't be part of Him. Why?

Because as we agreed in the first attribute, The Necessary Being is Eternal, whereas everything else (the universe and all creation) are not.

Remember that we are logically dealing here with attributes, not metaphysics nor the "essence" of The Creator.

<< You assume that god has a will >>

Yes, and that's a logical assumption. Why? Because as agreed this intelligent universe needs an Intelligent Originator.

<< He must also be eternal death. After all, all death also flows from Him >>

He gives life to His creation and He also takes it away. I agree with you on that.

<< if God chooses a body and to exist within one for a period of time, is that beyond God's capabilities? >>

Your question reminds me of those who ask is it beyond God's capability to create a stone so heavy that He can't lift?

God is Eternal. There is to Him no equivalent.

All the best.

 

[linwood]

This article follows reason and logic to answer the question "Does God exist?":
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason01.htm

Actually it doesn`t.

It follows a learned faith from conclusion to beginning.

In other words it does not follow a logical path, which would be to ask the question then find evidence to determine a probable answer.

What the article does is start with the conclusion(God did it) then fill in the blanks as to how he did it.

It doesn`t work that way.

 

[linwood]

The logic of Cause and Effect is straight-forward and does not need to be complicated.

Very true.

Each thing/event/creature has a cause which made it come into existence.

You have no way of knowing this.

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

This is why your theory is illogical.
This creator must follow the standard you set for "Everything" at the outset or your theory crumbles.
As it has.

Could the universe have been created out of nothing?

Why must it have been created?
If you can say this creator needed no creator to exist then it is even more logical to say that the universe needed no creating.
It just always was.

You complicate the issue with this creator.
He`s not necessary.

 

[linwood]

Today we know that the universe is around 14 billion years old, which means it's not eternal.

Please cite how we know this and where you got this info.

 

[No*s]

While I agree with you that Divine Revelation would make it easier for us to understand God's attributes, this phase of logical thinking is meant for people who either doubt the authenticity of The Torah / The Bible / The Qur'an, or those who have not read them and would prefer to study the existence or non-existence of God first from a logical point of view before getting into details.

That is what I was trying to keep it to . I have a feeling there is a hard limit to what we can say without it. We, obviously, disagree on what that limit is.

While I agree that God is not composed of parts, I think you've overstepped your logic. How do you know that God isn't a universe contained in Himself, and that our universe popped up out of His core universe: that ours is a derivative? You can't.

I don't think this question is related to the logical attribute of God not being composed of parts. All what is not "The Necessary Being" is created by Him, and as such can't be part of Him. Why?

Because as we agreed in the first attribute, The Necessary Being is Eternal, whereas everything else (the universe and all creation) are not.

The point I was driving at with the universe comment is that we do not know that God doesn't have parts. For all we know, God could well have many parts, but all of them eternal. Pah, for instance, is making a form of the argument. If the universe was caused by a multiverse (parallel universes), then the Neccessary Being (I won't call this God), would be an over-arching universe which caused ours.

It is both logical (and unprovable, but that's another matter), and consistent with the neccessary properties of a Neccessary Being, but such a multiverse would have many parts.

We agree that God has a mind, but a mind is a part. If we can identify and separate a concept, that is a part. This applies to "mind" and many other like things.

You assume that god has a will

Yes, and that's a logical assumption. Why? Because as agreed this intelligent universe needs an Intelligent Originator.

Not if the Creator is perfect and all creation emanates from Him. If that is the case, then He merely need exist, and an ordered universe would be the result. It is logical and internally consistent (and almost the universal theory among philosophers who did not receive revelation).

He must also be eternal death. After all, all death also flows from Him

He gives life to His creation and He also takes it away. I agree with you on that.

Good .

if God chooses a body and to exist within one for a period of time, is that beyond God's capabilities?

Your question reminds me of those who ask is it beyond God's capability to create a stone so heavy that He can't lift?

Actually, it shouldn't. My question is one concerning a statement you made about what God cannot be. "God must not have a body" and the like are actually more akin to the riddle than my proposition.

If you worded it that God must not have a body of His own nature, thus not limiting Him, then I would have agreed whole-heartedly. Your wording limits the decisions God can make, and as such, places Him under the constraints of our perspective and existence. That, in turn, removes the "Neccessary Being" quality. I cannot, and I will not, do that.

God is Eternal. There is to Him no equivalent.

On that, you'll get no disagreement .

 

[Cordoba]

<< do we have a "begining and an end"? >>

Sure we do, and I'm talking about our life on earth in this universe.

Beginning: at birth
End: at death

You don't have to remember your birth. Have you never attended and witnessed others going through these 2 phases?

 

[Cordoba]

<< What the article does is start with the conclusion(God did it) then fill in the blanks as to how he did it >>

I disagree, linwood.

The first article starts with a logical observation that all what exists in this universe has a Cause behind it. And as this universe is not eternal (14 billion years old according to science), then logically-speaking it must have come into existence by a Cause which is Eternal.

The second reference then describes the second phase of logically deducing the attributes of this First Cause, which the author calls at this stage The Necessary Being.

What problem do you see in that approach?

 

[Cordoba]

<< This creator must follow the standard you set for "Everything" at the outset or your theory crumbles >>

Again, I disagree with you linwood.

It's like saying if the production engineer in a car manufacturing company designs the production line using robots, then he or she at home must also have a robot!

The Necessary Being is not like what He creates. He does not follow the same rules as those with which He designed and created His creation.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MOD POST*

I didn't realize it until TVOR pointed it out....but this is not a debate forum. This thread is in the discussion forum for learning and questions only. Debate is not allowed. Please do not debate in this thread anymore folks, unless Cordoba wants to debate, in which case I will move the thread to the debates section.

Thanks.

 

[Cordoba]

No problem Mr_Spinkles (please forgive a new member of the forum).

Let's then move the thread to Religious Debates.

Thanks and all the best.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

*MOD POST* Thread moved to Religious Debates. *END MOD POST*

No*s-- You spoke of a "whale of an assumption" that I have made. What exactly did I assume?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Since Cordoba has asked Spinkles to move the thread into a Debate Forum, I will now participate. Again, I apologize if I tread on someone else's turf, due to not having read the entire thread to this point.

... The first article starts with a logical observation that all what exists in this universe has a Cause behind it.

The Principle of Causality is not a given. I would deny the premise that because the Universe exists, something must have caused it. At this point in time, we do not have enough scientific evidence to make an indisputable claim as to the "beginning" or "end" of the Universe. We certainly know more now than we did as little as 50 years ago - and 50 years from now, we will know even more. Until the time that we have a strong reason to believe one way or another, it is not logical to make an assumption based solely on the Principle of Causality.

And as this universe is not eternal (14 billion years old according to science), then logically-speaking it must have come into existence by a Cause which is Eternal.

As Linwood and others have pointed out, if you use the Principle of Causality to deny the possibility of the Universe having always existed, then I would use it to also deny the possibility of God having always existed - especially prior to the existence of the Universe. Reduced to a most basic argument - "You can't have it both ways". Either Causality applies or it does not. There is NO logical basis for applying it to the Universe and not to God. The fact that one employs a euphemism for God (i.e. The Necessary Being) does not negate this. The euphemism is simply a red herring.

For you to convince me that logic can lead one to faith, you will have to come up with a MUCH better argument. I have no quarrel with anyone that believes in the existence of God. As to attaining that belief with the use of logic - well - you have no footing. Your belief in God comes solely from Revealed Faith, whether you agree or disagree is immaterial. For you to reach a conclusion of God's existence using logic, you will have to twist the discipline into something unrecognizable.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[No*s]

No*s-- You spoke of a "whale of an assumption" that I have made. What exactly did I assume?

It's two-fold. First, your argument assumed that something outside of time couldn't exist, largely because it was meaningless.

Later, though, with Cordoba, you asserted that the universe had a beginning, but that doesn't neccessitate having a cause, much less a creator. That, however, flies in the face of your assumption on God, and further, just like a being outside of time, we have never observed or been given reason that something can have a beginning without a cause.

That second assumption is a pretty big one, but in light of the preceding one, it becomes whale-sized .

 

[linwood]

I disagree, linwood.

I thought you might.

The first article starts with a logical observation that all what exists in this universe has a Cause behind it.

Exactly!!
This is not a question but an assertion.
It is starting with the answer and building a case for it backwards.
I see no reason to consider the concept of a creator "logical".
Please don`t give me the watchmaker argument.
Please tell me what standard is used to establish the "cause" of the universe.

If you can do that then we can move on as if it were a question.

And as this universe is not eternal (14 billion years old according to science), then logically-speaking it must have come into existence by a Cause which is Eternal.

While I have not studied the info I`ve been given on this as of yet I consider it no different than the council of nicea telling Christendom what is and isn`t inspired writing.

If as I believe this "timeline" is based upon the same "redshift" as the theory of the Big Bang is then it is based on evidence that is not entirely falsifiable and therefore nothing more than "scripture" for the masses.

I do find it odd however that you would use the cornerstone of the Big Bang as evidence to argue for Intelligent design

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I do find it odd however that you would use the cornerstone of the Big Bang as evidence to argue for Intelligent design.

Odd indeed. I'd say "rare" in the sense that I've never seen it before.


TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's two-fold. First, your argument assumed that something outside of time couldn't exist, largely because it was meaningless.

I don't assume something outside of time couldn't exist anymore than I assume that Invisible Pink Unicorns can't exist. The problem is not that I have made a 'whale of an assumption', the problem is that there is no evidence for "something outside of time" (or Invisible Pink Unicorns, for that matter ). If "something outside of time" exists, please present the evidence.

Later, though, with Cordoba, you asserted that the universe had a beginning, but that doesn't neccessitate having a cause, much less a creator.

Yes, because "beginning" here is misleading. Normally, when we say something began, there is a period of time before it began. There is not, however (according to relativity) any period of time "before" the universe began. The universe has always existed--there has never not been a universe.

Besides, there is no logical way to prove that everything must have a cause....that is a temporary assumption that we make for the sake of methodology, and it is an assumption that has been severely challenged in recent times by quantum mechanics.

That, however, flies in the face of your assumption on God,

I haven't assumed anything about God, I have merely declined to presuppose His existence as you have. If something exists outside of time, please show me the evidence.

and further, just like a being outside of time, we have never observed or been given reason that something can have a beginning without a cause.

1) Again, "beginning" can be confusing. Unlike a ball rolling down a hill (which probably was caused by something), the universe has always existed--the ball, on the other hand, was not always rolling down that hill. 2) Quantum mechanics shows that, apparently, things can happen without a cause. The only reason "things happen because of causes" is a good assumption is because observation suppports it; in quantum mechanics, however, observation flies in the face of that assumption.