Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[painted wolf]

I'd like to think my theological leanings have a logical base... but I'm not going to try fool myself into thinking that theology is inherantly logical.

I base my theology on my personal experiences more than anything elce.

I however don't think that theological belief is inherantly 'illogical'. I think that most peoples theology is a mix of logical and illogical conclusions.

wa:do

 

[Scott1]

Well, TVOR.... it looks official to me..... another one bites the dust. Oh well.... I'll keep hoping!

 

[cardero]

Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

“Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to.”

-- George Seaton



“A Great Escape into faith is no retreat to safety. It is nothing less than surrender.”

-- Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Dang!! Anything less than an instant response, and someone steps in. Pah's reference to the God of the Gaps is spot on.

At any rate, I want to address the response from Cordoba-

Very well done, Cordoba. The first syllogism is pretty sound, with the following problems:

The second Premise from Phase 1 -

Premise - All things that exist require a cause for their existence.

I deny this Premise based on the lack of scientific understanding of the beginning of the Universe.
As a secondary argument, if I were to accept the Premise, I would hold that the Premise must also apply to God - and not be limited to the physical Universe. We have absolutely nothing (other than revealed faith) that would lead us to believe that the rules of logic need not apply to God.
Until we resolve these problems, I have to deny your conclusion.


When we advance to the second Phase, we begin to see bigger breakdowns:

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

Obviously, I deny the premise, due to the errors in the first Phase.

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

For the sake of the debate, I will not challenge this statement. The true life span of the Universe is not exactly known, but as I said earlier, I will not turn this into a debate on the existentialism on the reality of the Universe (although others might wish to).

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.

This statement has no real meaning to me. I believe that your premise is intended to demonstrate that the Universe existed before time began. I cannot respond, until I am certain that I am not misconstruing your intent. Truth be told, there is no agreed upon understanding of what is even meant by "before time began" or "before the Universe existed". Spinkles has touched on this in some of his earlier posts. This is one of the most intriguing questions for astrophyicists.

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

Please, let's suspend the use of the phrase "Necessary Being". We are all adults, and we all understand that we are talking about God.
In terms of the logic used to reach this conclusion, I can only say that with my current understanding of your second premise in Phase 2, this would be a non-sequitur. This may well be incorrect, because at this point, I am making a large assumption about your second premise, and the first premise has been denied. Come to think of it, I would be remiss to even try to categorize the fallacy of the conclusion - I do not have enough information to make a judgement on it.

I base my theology on my personal experiences more than anything elce.

Precisely, Painted Wolf. To me, this is what a person's belief system should be based on. Not that I am right - only that I agree with your statement.

Well, TVOR.... it looks official to me..... another one bites the dust. Oh well.... I'll keep hoping!

Oddly, I don't see anything to hope for. If I were a Theist, I think I would take comfort from the fact that my faith was based on something other than logic - I guess that is one reason that I am not a Theist. I have said this before, and I will repeat it - I admire the ability that enables some humans to base their belief system on revealed faith. For some people, this ability is what gives them peace in their world, and they take guidance from it. I simply do not possess that ability. I must find my guidance elsewhere.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[linwood]

TVOR (and linwood)
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.

Again, it is far more "logical" to just describe the universe as eternal since this breaks no natural laws within it.

We have also seen evidence of the universe, no one has seen evidence for a creator.
They imply evidence through illogical means as you are doing but they can submit no falsifiable evidence.

By giving your creator special exception you must ultimately develop a place for him to reside outside the universe and rules and guidlines for him to follow .

This is how fairytales and folklore are born not scientific method.

It is simply an illogical path to take.

The watchmaker argument as you`ve laid it out is also illogical considering the fact that the "Chief Engineer" does indeed need to follow the same natural rules as his creation.

There`s no getting away from it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Cordoba - In re-reading the last couple of pages in this thread, I realize that you might see this as an attack on your belief system. I speak only for myself, when I say that this is not the case. I fully respect your beliefs, regardless of what they are, and your right to hold them. For myself, this debate is simply directed toward the vehicle by which you arrive at those beliefs.

I am an Agnostic (although Deut is beginning to make me question the label I have chosen for my belief system). For the sake of this debate, I would like to offer the following explanation of why I believe as I do:
Observation - I require a clear, first person interaction with God before I will believe in His existence.
Observation - God has not revealed himself to me (for whatever reason) in such a manner.
Observation - Science cannot disprove the existence of God (nor does it try to).
Observation - People that neither accept or reject the existence of God are labeled "Agnostics" ( I recognize the difference between a "Strong Agnostic" and a "Weak Agnostic"). In my case, I am referring to Weak Agnosticism, which, in many ways, overlaps with Weak Atheism. We can discuss it further, in another thread, if you care (don't feel obligated - my feelings would not be hurt).

Based on the observations above, I would use the syllogism below to explain my belief system:
Premise - Agnostics have reached no conclusion as to the existence of God.
Premise - I have not reached a conclusion as to the existence of God.
Conclusion - Therefore, I am an Agnostic.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Just for the fun of it, I thought I would take a stab at the same thing for a Theist such as Scott (SOGFPP):

Observation - I do not require a first person interaction with God as a prerequisite to believing in His existence.
-or-
Observation - I have experienced a first person interaction with God.
Observation - I believe in God.
Observation - People that believe in God are called Theists (of which, there are many factions).

Premise - People that believe in God are called Theists (you can insert your particular brand of Theism here).
Premise - I believe in God.
Conclusion - Therefore, I am a Theist (Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, Pagan, etc.)

Well Scott (or any of our Theistic members) - what say you? Is this a fair summation?

TVOR

 

[TranceAm]

<< 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 ?

Put like that, then at exact t=0, the universe didn't exist.

>As we can't know through science what exactly happened,

As the Gap argument points to .. "Not yet".

>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?

Yes. definitly.. it "tends towards infinity at that point."
And I think we now have (and can) to come to an agreement here, wouldn't you have to agree that one can't exclude other posibilities that can explain the universe besides a creator either? As your last statement could be rewritten to:

"We simply exclude the application of Cause and Effect on the beginning of the universe, as we exclude the value of x=0 from the function y=1/x"

:162:

 

[Scott1]

Just for the fun of it, I thought I would take a stab at the same thing for a Theist such as Scott (SOGFPP):

I'm honored......

That's a fair, although basic, summation.

 

[No*s]

One thing I'd like to proffer for the thread:

Most of our positions on here are logical, though some of it needs to be worded better. Deductive logic is dictated by its premises. If we supply the right premises, then the Creator is unavoidable. If we supply different premises then the universe is eternally existent. The issue of whether the universe has an origin is subject to our interpretation of the facts (of course...my interpretation is right ).

Here is a perfectly logical statement that is false and an illogical statement that is true.

All men are pink with purple polka dots.
TVOR is a man.
TVOR is pink with purple polka dots.

(We are excluding the purple socks, of course ).

Some reptiles are snakes.
North America has reptiles.
North America has snakes.

Logic and truth are two separate things .

 

[TranceAm]

>If we supply the right premises, then the Creator is unavoidable.

>Logic and truth are two separate things .

If we supply the wrong premises, then the Creator is unavoidable too.

But does the rightness or the wrongness of the premisis state anything about the/a creator being true?

I agree that Logic and truth are 2 separate things..
But if there is an ultimate truth, there is also logic that can guide to that truth.

I still have to see a computer program that works on a faith varaible to get you your salary slip.

 

[No*s]

>If we supply the right premises, then the Creator is unavoidable.

>Logic and truth are two separate things .

If we supply the wrong premises, then the Creator is unavoidable too.

But does the rightness or the wrongness of the premisis state anything about the/a creator being true?

I agree that Logic and truth are 2 separate things..
But if there is an ultimate truth, there is also logic that can guide to that truth.

I still have to see a computer program that works on a faith varaible to get you your salary slip.

And how do you know those are the wrong premises?

The universe has a point we can label a "beginning." We are told it will expand forever and die a cold, lifeless thing...almost a void. That means it's not recycling itself. We haven't seen another universe. That sounds a lot like something that was caused to me.

In the end, we are both interpreting the data we see, and from that interpretation, we supply our premises. In this case, it's the issue of Creator. There are multiple issues.

I would take issue with your statement "if there is ultimate truth, there is also logic that can guide to that truth." Logic is a creation of the human mind. I've seen no proof it is inherent in nature or the world. We use it to construct models and explain what we see so that we can interact with it. It doesn't mean that it is any more real than numbers, miles, or the like. It is a useful construct, but still a construct, and it can only go so far IMO.

 

[Cordoba]

Thanks TVOR, linwood, No*s and others for your interesting comments to post # 90.

It's been an interesting debate, but I think we've reached the point where we will have to agre to disagree.

The way I personally see this phase of logical thinking on whether God exists or not is that it's an initial introduction.

As No*s said at the start, at some point additional information is needed (a Revelation, or a communication from the Creator, if He exists, to inform us of further information including why He created us).

This process of reasoning based on logic alone may have partially closed a gap, and what is needed after that for further research would be to move to the second phase.

Unfortunately, time is very limited right now, but please continue with the thread if it's of interest. I'll be back in due course when I can.

With best wishes to all.

 

[linwood]

The universe has a point we can label a "beginning." We are told it will expand forever and die a cold, lifeless thing...almost a void. That means it's not recycling itself. We haven't seen another universe. That sounds a lot like something that was caused to me.

You guys are starting to freak me out.

Thats the second time in as many days I`ve seen a thiest use the foundation of the Big Bang to support ID.

The problem No*s is that we just don`t know if the universe had a beginning or if it will have an end.

I for one don`t believe it has had or will have either one.

I think the idea itself is a fallacy.

 

[No*s]

You guys are starting to freak me out.

Thats the second time in as many days I`ve seen a thiest use the foundation of the Big Bang to support ID.

I've used the BB in a theistic view several times .

The problem No*s is that we just don`t know if the universe had a beginning or if it will have an end.

I for one don`t believe it has had or will have either one.

I think the idea itself is a fallacy.

Yeah, I've read your opposition to the Big Bang, and I've enjoyed it . However, for those of us who accept it, it does fit well in a theistic mold. For my part, I trust the scientists on it, but I also go on about my business. They could well be completely wrong. We don't know, just like you said, and if it fell apart, very little would change for me.

Even without the BB, when I look at the world, I see it balanced and set up in a fashion that makes me think of a Creator. I don't fool myself. I can't prove that it is. It strikes me that way, and all we have to go on in our reason are our interpretations of the world.

 

[TranceAm]

And how do you know those are the wrong premises?

1) The universe has a point we can label a "beginning."

Afterall, How else to cope and understand infinity?

2) We are told it will expand forever and die a cold, lifeless thing...almost a void.

By an in itself A Theory that (And will be.) at any time upgraded when newer and more accurate information is found. Funny thing with a Theory is that it isn't claimed to be the ultimate truth.
On the other hand is "A flat earth". Now it isn't very promising to have to upgrade the ultimate truth as written and teached (With the sword if nessecary.) with newer information when it becomes really unavoidable in order to keep credibility...

3) That means it's not recycling itself.

And if it is we wouldnt be able to notice it.

4) We haven't seen another universe.

Tricks of light. We also have problems seeing very small things. Sounds like infinity in every direction, not?

5) That sounds a lot like something that was caused to me.

Sounds to me that that isn't proven. So why assume it to be?

>In the end, we are both interpreting the data we see, and from that interpretation, we supply our premises. In this case, it's the issue of Creator. There are multiple issues.

True. But doesn't interpreting the data objectively mean that you can't start with a subjective viewpoint on the case?
There is a difference in "Needing a creator because everything in your life is based on/around it" and "It is interesting to know but not really essential whether there is a Creator or not"...
Who would have less problems admitting they are wrong and the other side was right?

 

[TranceAm]

Thanks TVOR, linwood, No*s and others for your interesting comments to post # 90.

It's been an interesting debate, but I think we've reached the point where we will have to agre to disagree.

Unfortunately, time is very limited right now, but please continue with the thread if it's of interest. I'll be back in due course when I can.

With best wishes to all.

>Would you agree?

Yes. definitly.. it "tends towards infinity at that point."
And I think we now have (and can) to come to an agreement here, wouldn't you have to agree that one can't exclude other posibilities that can explain the universe besides a creator either? As your last statement could be rewritten to:

"We simply exclude the application of Cause and Effect on the beginning of the universe, as we exclude the value of x=0 from the function y=1/x"

Gosh, I would have loved to get an answer to this one... Sorry that you ran out of time.
Best wishes.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

If "something outside of time" exists, please present the evidence.

Simply showing a need for a Creator would do that.

I did not ask to be 'shown the need for a Creator'. I asked for evidence for 'something that exists outside of time'. Please provide it.

Keep in mind that the claim "According to Relativity, nothing could have existed before the big bang, therefore God must defy Relativity" is not evidence, it is an ad-hoc hypothesis.

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."

Whether you relent on it or not, the universe has always existed.

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.

Yes, but so what? So the universe has a beginning and an end. Randomly occurring things can have a beginning and an end, just as causal things can. Furthermore, supposing the universe was caused by something, there is no way to distinguish between a supernatural cause and an uknown cause.

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.

Get out of what--abandoning the flawed assumption that the universe (or something outside the universe) must have existed for more than 14 billion years?

However, has quantum mechanics ever been observed to function universally?

This is irrelevant. Things can occur randomly, and this is true whether things can occur randomly some of the time or all of the time. In the case of the big bang, where we are dealing with an extremely dense, high energy universe, and all of our known physics completely fails us, a comparison to the strange world of QM is far more educational than a comparison to you opening the fridge and getting a glass of OJ.

Mmm....OJ....

Actually, "the universe has always existed" is as unproven as God and it is the subject of debate.

Both are unproven, but unlike the latter, the former is well evidenced. If you disagree that the universe has always existed, please tell me:

1) When did the universe not exist?
2) For how long?

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.

No, it does not logically follow that because the universe is finite, it must have a Creator. A finite universe could have been caused by some poorly understood natural phenomenon (i.e. string or M theory); or it could be finite and come from an outer, infinite universe; or it could be finite and have 5,672 Creators. Of course, if we are allowed to believe things for which there is no evidence, all of the above are equally 'reasonable conclusions'.

 

[No*s]

1) The universe has a point we can label a "beginning."

Afterall, How else to cope and understand infinity?

That defines away the point. We have a spot, several billion years ago, we can label a "beginning." If we are debating if this is a beginning, and you assert your interpretation as an argument, you are on no firmer ground than I. We are both asserting our opinions here, neither of us are asserting a fact.

For instance, what makes you think that the universe has an infinite duration? The purely rational answer is Linwood's: we do not know.

2) We are told it will expand forever and die a cold, lifeless thing...almost a void.

By an in itself A Theory that (And will be.) at any time upgraded when newer and more accurate information is found. Funny thing with a Theory is that it isn't claimed to be the ultimate truth.
On the other hand is "A flat earth". Now it isn't very promising to have to upgrade the ultimate truth as written and teached (With the sword if nessecary.) with newer information when it becomes really unavoidable in order to keep credibility...

It is a theory, but it's not my theory. I've heard it voiced by men far more learned on cosmology than either of us put together. I am blatantly interpreting the meaning of the theory. Again, it is coupled with the fact that they have labelled something a "beginning," and we have this as an end.

Christian dogma is that the world was created. It isn't neccessary to say "how." This view goes back a long way. I know it goes back to St. Basil in the fourth century, and I'd wager, it goes back further. Christianity doesn't make ultimate truth out of "how," so it's kind of irrelevant dogmatically in almost every case.

BTW, most educated people in the Graeco tradition have believed in a round earth. It's been proven for a long time and hasn't really been a point of dispute in the Church.

3) That means it's not recycling itself.

And if it is we wouldnt be able to notice it.

It's not my theory, as I said. The "recycling" I referred to was a theory called the "Big Crunch" which is out of favor now.

4) We haven't seen another universe.

Tricks of light. We also have problems seeing very small things. Sounds like infinity in every direction, not?

So...you are willing to assert a multiverse without direct observation, but have a problem doing the same with deity? I can use the first part of your argument above for theism. We can't observe or test Him, but that doesn't mean He isn't there.

The second part is irrelevant to my point. If one accepts the dominant position that there was a Big Bang, and that the universe will not recycle in a Big Crunch, theism is a viable interpretation. What I haven't asserted is that it is the only interpretation.

Besides, even if the universe is infinitely large, it really has no bearing on if there is one or more universes . We're still talking about one.

5) That sounds a lot like something that was caused to me.

Sounds to me that that isn't proven. So why assume it to be?

I haven't said it was proven. I said it was an interpretation. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this question is inherently unprovable. I only seek to show it is compatible with what we see.

>In the end, we are both interpreting the data we see, and from that interpretation, we supply our premises. In this case, it's the issue of Creator. There are multiple issues.

True. But doesn't interpreting the data objectively mean that you can't start with a subjective viewpoint on the case?

And I affirm that you can't start with an objective view of the data. You always have to start with a subjective interpretation. If I say I have a shape in my mind that's 3' by 3' by 3', you may assert it's a cube and another person a pyramid. You can't know from that much data.

These questions are like that. When we look at the world, we will always interpret it within a framework. We can't escape that. It will always have a hefty degree of subjectivity. If you have a way to be objective, to circumvent the limitations on your capacity for reason, knowledge, perception, and preconceptions, then you will be very rich and wise shortly. Nobody else in history has.

There is a difference in "Needing a creator because everything in your life is based on/around it" and "It is interesting to know but not really essential whether there is a Creator or not"...

Is it unimportant to you? You seem to have put great effort into this post, which indicates that you place some value in the subject.

As for me, I am a Christian (and not because I saw Christ by looking at the world). With that comes a world view that does make it important. The value of a belief in a Creator is, again, a subjective thing. BTW, I never asserted I needed a creator because everything in my life was based on/around it. In fact, I am a convert to Christianity. That could hardly be the case.

Who would have less problems admitting they are wrong and the other side was right?

Neither. Atheism is a philosophy that does have a tendency to proselytize. It has also had its inquisitions and regimes murdering those who disagree. In fact, I have met Muslims, Jews, Christians, Mormons, and several others that when they find out how I believe, do not try to persuade me. I have never met an atheist that won't.

All that tells me that there's an emotional investment in the philosophy, and frankly, it would normally have as much trouble giving up its philosophy as a theist.

 

[TranceAm]

For instance, what makes you think that the universe has an infinite duration? The purely rational answer is Linwood's: we do not know.

True..
We won't know what time the clock will show when the universe ends.
So if we make that time t=x And we don't know what happend at t=0 then infinity is the time between but not including those 2 points. Yes?

>So...you are willing to assert a multiverse without direct observation, but have a problem doing the same with deity? I can use the first part of your argument above for theism. We can't observe or test Him, but that doesn't mean He isn't there.

If you would have read my first post in this thread, then you would know what I am willing to assert. And what not.

>Besides, even if the universe is infinitely large, it really has no bearing on if there is one or more universes . We're still talking about one.

Infinitly large, indeed.. For at least as large as the shock wave of the big bang has gone since t=0...
Might take some time for the shockwave of another (Not our!) big bang to reach us.
However, it would take away the "exclusivnes".

>Is it unimportant to you? You seem to have put great effort into this post, which indicates that you place some value in the subject.

Oh I love infinity. And It basically touches me everywhere?

>All that tells me that there's an emotional investment in the philosophy, and frankly, it would normally have as much trouble giving up its philosophy as a theist.
Judge not, that ye be not judged...:162: