Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[linwood]

Occams Razor to the "T".

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:F7LL22xJE1IJ:skepdic.com/occam.html+occams+Razor&hl=xx-hacker&start=2

Yes it is trance but please don`t tell Deut I used it.

He`ll be all over me in a minute.

 

[No*s]

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.

Simply showing a need for a Creator would do that. I do think we'll interpret the evidence differently there .

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.

I understand. We're discussing things that our language wasn't designed to handle .

However, I do not relent on the "there has never not been a universe" (again, using sloppy terminology). We have a point we can go back to and say "This may be a beginning." You have asserted that the universe is going to expand indefinately and "die" that way. It isn't being recycled. I can see a beginning and end in that.

I'm sure there are other ways out, but they have to assume pretty big things we can't verify. For instance, if the universe is part of a multiverse with universes beginning and dying all the time, then we could get out of it. However, I don't think anybody has ever been to one or observed one. As such, they remain beyond our observation as much as God.

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.

However, has quantum mechanics ever been observed to function universally? I've never opened my fridge, poured out milk, and gotten orange juice. While QM may "challenge" the assumption, your wording indicates it hasn't dethroned causality. It is still the universally observed feature around us, unless I read you wrong.

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.

I'll accept that, but the wording strongly suggested that because God is outside of time, He existed "0 seconds," just as the IPU.

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.

Actually, "the universe has always existed" is as unproven as God, and it is the subject of debate. The theists among us can (and do) look at the fact that we can trace the universe back to a viable origin, that we can foresee its death, and not recycling itself to start over as evidence for a Creator. With those conditions, it is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Cordoba]

Hello linwood (in the new thread location where it belongs)

In reply to "The first article starts with a logical observation that all what exists in this universe has a Cause behind it" you said:

<< This is not a question but an assertion. It is starting with the answer and building a case for it backwards >>

Cause and Effect is a basic rule in this universe.

- Is there a reason that day and night alternate? Is that caused by something?
- Is there a reason that after winter, comes spring then summer? Anything causes that to happen?
- Was there a reason behind the Asian tsunami? Did something trigger it and cause it to happen?

Do you suggest for example that the Sumatra earthquake did not cause the tsunami? And that the earthquake itself was caused by other geological factors?

If you think deeply, you will find that each and everything around us has a reason.

This includes our universe, which also has a reason. It came into existence by a Cause, The First Cause, who designed the whole process and made it happen. It's simply very logical.

 

[Cordoba]

TVOR

<< 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 >>

Let's look at the manufacturing analogy once again.

Do the same principles which govern the manufacturing process in a car factory also apply to the Chief Engineer who designed the process with conveyer belts and robots?

The clear answer is no. The house of the Chief engineer does not have a conveyer belt and a set of robots. He designed the manufacturing process that way, but it doesn't mean that he is "constrained" with his design.

The same applies to the Cause behind the design and the creation of the universe.

He is Eternal and different from us, therefore the laws of Casuality don't apply to Him.

As this universe is not eternal, and (logically-speaking) only the Necessary Being is Eternal, there is to Him no equivalent.

 

[linwood]

This includes our universe, which also has a reason. It came into existence by a Cause, The First Cause, who designed the whole process and made it happen. It's simply very logical.

If indeed the universe came into existence then yes, there was a cause.

You first have to prove it came into existence and did not exist at one time .

Good luck with that.

Once you`ve proven it came into existence you then have to prove the cause was ID.
You will never do this with any strength of support by starting with the cause that you wish to prove.

It`s illogical.

By the way, thank you for giving TVOR the watchmaker argument and not me.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

This includes our universe, which also has a reason. It came into existence by a Cause, The First Cause, who designed the whole process and made it happen. It's simply very logical.

Okay - we'll go through this again. We just did this in the thread "The Premise for Intelligent Design", but since you are new, I'll take you through it.
The argument you make in your statement above is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question.
I will state your argument for you, in syllogistic form. If you feel that I am misstating your position, please feel free to correct me.
Your Argument for a Faith Based on Logic:
Premise - The Universe exists.
Premise - All things that exist have a cause.
Conclusion - Something (God) caused the Universe to exist.

Your argument fails (logically speaking) on two points:
First (and most importantly), it begs the question. Your conclusion is simply another way of stating the second Premise.
Secondly, the second Premise is the very point of this debate. No one on this side of the aisle has ceded the point, and they will not, barring scientific evidence that the Universe did not exist at some point prior to now, and that Causality applies on the astronomical level, at the time of the creation of the Universe (if it did not exist at some point prior).
You ignored my point in my original post - If the Universe must have a cause for its existence, why do you not apply that rule to the existence of God?

Let's look at the manufacturing analogy once again.

Your analogy of the factory is baseless. It is simply a spinoff of the watchmaker argument, which has been put to rest ad infinitum on this site (and others). I would ask Spinkles to reiterate his version, as I think it is simple and easy to follow.

He is Eternal and different from us, therefore the laws of Casuality don't apply to Him.

Well, now this is a jewel. I thought we were going to base our faith on logic. I didn't realize that the use of logic would be suspended when it was convenient to hold a position. Of all of the errors in your argument, this one is the big whopper. When I said in my original post that you will have to twist the discipline of logic into something unrecognizable to prove your point, I slighted you. You didn't even bother to twist logic - you completely abandoned it.

As this universe is not eternal, and (logically-speaking) only the Necessary Being is Eternal, there is to Him no equivalent.

Well daggone it!! Just when I thought you were abandoning logic, you surprise me once again, by reasserting it. I must say that I was correct - you are now using a twisted version of the discipline. You have assumed that the Necessary Being (let's just cut to the chase and call him God from now on - it'll save us both a lot of typing) is eternal and you claim that it is "logically speaking". I'm sorry, Cordoba - but that is a clear case of begging the question.

For you to make a claim to a faith in God's existence based on logic, you need to construct a syllogism that lists your Premises, then state the Conclusion based on the Premises. I'll give you a leg up, by stating two Premises and your Conclusion for you:
Premise - The Universe exists.
Premise - All things that exist require a cause for their existence.
Premise -
Conclusion - Therefore, God exists.
If you need more than three Premises, feel free to use as many as you need - I'll follow along and not get lost. Notice that I will grant the first Premise (and I feel safe in saying that no one on this side of the aisle will reduce the argument to one of existentialism, regarding the Universe). The second Premise is still up for debate, but I'm willing to listen to your arguments on its behalf.
The only thing you now need is that third Premise. Hint - think carefully, because that is the one that will be illogical.

Best of luck, Cordoba. And remember, we are basing this faith on logic - not the suspension of it. That would require a revealed faith.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Cordoba - on a side note, it will be a much cleaner debate if you will stop trying to claim that a given statement is "logically-speaking" or "simply very logical". If you wish to use logic as the basis for a position, please take the time to construct your argument in a universally accepted format - I ask this as a favor, to help eliminate time wasted trying to determine exactly what your premises and conclusions are. In the thread "The Premise for Intelligent Design" I wasted a little over an hour before I realized that what was being set forth as Premise was, in fact, the Conclusion. At that point, I had to go back and reconstruct the argument for the other side. Strangely, I never received a "Thank you".

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scott1]

You ignored my point in my original post - If the Universe must have a cause for its existence, why do you not apply that rule to the existence of God?

Hello dear friend.... sorry to jump in..... can you explain this?

Are you trying to say that he should apply his rule to God, in that God must have a cause for His existance?

Just trying to keep up with this..... HELP!

Scott

 

[linwood]

Hello dear friend.... sorry to jump in..... can you explain this?

Are you trying to say that he should apply his rule to God, in that God must have a cause for His existance?

Yes Scott I believe he is saying that.

If you use one standard to define the existence of absolutely everything within the universe then you must consistently use that standard.

This means if everything was created then so was the creator, and his creator, and his creator and so on and so on..ad infinitum.
See the problem with that?

Alternately if one can say that this creator simply always existed then another can say well ..if thats possible then why is it not possible that the universe itself always existed and had no need of a creator?

TVOR can answer for himself but I just wanted to butt in.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are you trying to say that he should apply his rule to God, in that God must have a cause for His existance?
Just trying to keep up with this..... HELP!
Scott

Hello Scott. Yes, you understand perfectly. I am saying that if he wishes to base his faith on logic, then he must apply the rules of logic and reason to God as well as all things physical. His stance is doomed to failure.
Like you, he bases his faith in God's existence in revealed faith. Unlike you, he wishes to claim otherwise.

He seeks to "prove" God's existence by using a tool developed by mankind (logic), and to do so, he must bastardize the discipline to make his claim. I know it is pre-judging on my part, but I'll be shocked if he can pull this little jewel out of thin air. MANY have trodden this path before Cordoba, and none have found the magic bullet that will allow them to hold their position.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[Scott1]

Got ya chief..... I've got my scorecard out..... let's see if there is one person out there who can pull this off.

 

[Cordoba]

TVOR (and linwood)

<< If the Universe must have a cause for its existence, why do you not apply that rule to the existence of God? >>

For the simple reason mentioned earlier that He is Eternal.
He is outside the "rules of the universe" in the same way that the "Chief Engineer" is outside the rules of the assembly line of the car factory.

I'll give you another example, this time from the field of algebra.

If you draw the curve y = 1/x, you can apply it perfectly with all numbers, except with one value: x=0, when y would equal infinity.

Not being able to quantify infinity, does that mean that this function is wrong for all other values of x?

 

[Cordoba]

My quote is as follows:

"I'm talking about our life on earth in this universe."

<< doesn't religion see that "life on earth" as a "very" small part of our existance? >>

Yes, but the Hereafter will not be in this universe!

 

[retrorich]

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.

The "Eternal Creator" is an illogical fudge factor used to plug the holes in unacceptable theories.

 

[Pah]

The "Eternal Creator" is an illogical fudge factor used to plug the holes in unacceptable theories.

Isn't that the God of the Gaps? or am I "off" again

 

[TranceAm]

My quote is as follows:

"I'm talking about our life on earth in this universe."

<< doesn't religion see that "life on earth" as a "very" small part of our existance? >>

Yes, but the Hereafter will not be in this universe!

Doesn't matter, beside how you do you know?
The premise is and I'll quote (as good as possible since the reply only shows me the last page.) you "Unlike we that have a beginning and an End".

And "we" seem to be more then funny walking structures of molecules, yes?
"We" are differnent from all other structures of atoms and molecules, yes?
Otherwise "we" can never leave this universum and as you state it "not be in this universe"... So if part of us, can do it then, it also does it now. (Hence the dimension statements earlier.) Then that part will never end.

>If you draw the curve y = 1/x, you can apply it perfectly with all numbers, except with one value: x=0, when y would equal infinity.
>Not being able to quantify infinity, does that mean that this function is wrong for all other values of x?

Doesn't Algebra rules state that you have to exclude 0 from the domain BEFORE you can apply the function since the outcome is N/A with x = 0? And no AFAIK.. At Zero the function isn't infinity. It is unknown what the outcome is.
I do know when there IS an outcome. It becomes possible to instantaneous travel from <any>point to <any>point in this universe. (Travelled distance)/0 = Infinite fast.

 

[TranceAm]

Isn't that the God of the Gaps? or am I "off" again

Premise - The Universe exists.
Premise - All things that exist require a cause for their existence.
Premise -
Conclusion - Therefore, God exists.

I must admitt. It is Teeeeeeeeeeemting. To fill that Gaping hole...
Point is that if I manage (Even by accicent) to logically fill it...........
Do I want this?

 

[Cordoba]

<< Doesn't Algebra rules state that you have to exclude 0 from the domain BEFORE you can apply the function since the outcome is N/A with x = 0? >>

Do you then have a problem with applying this same logic with the law of Cause and Effect at the start of the universe, i.e. t=0 ?

As we can't know through science what exactly happened, we simply exclude the application of Cause and Effect on the Creator, as we exclude the value of x=0 from the function y=1/x, which tends towards infinity at that point.

Would you agree?

 

[Cordoba]

Premise - The Universe exists.
Premise - All things that exist require a cause for their existence.
Premise -
Conclusion - Therefore, God exists.

Based on the above post, this is a suggested way of closing this gap in two phases:

Phase 1

Premise - The universe exists.
Premise - All things that exist require a cause for their existence.
Conclusion - The universe therefore requires a cause



Phase 2

Starting point – The universe requires a cause (from Phase 1)

Fact – The universe is not eternal, as it’s around 14 billion years old

Premise – At t=0 (and before) we are dealing with the infinity zone (Eternity), which is beyond scientific discovery, but has to exist because the universe exists.

Conclusion – A Necessary Being existed before the universe who is the Cause behind the universe, and who is Eternal.


Comments are welcomed.

 

[Pah]

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/god_of_gaps.html

The "God Of The Gaps" Argument

This argument has the form

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* Therefore, the things in this gap are best explained as acts of God.

This is not based in logic. It is simply a statement of pessimism about the future progress of science.

Down through the centuries, science has eliminated a great many of its gaps. People who had used the Gap argument were embarrassed, since their God shrank in power with each new scientific advance. For example, after the work of Galileo and Newton, it was no longer thought that angels pushed the planets across the heavens.