God and Logic?

[Thief]

Thief here...
One big example.... the big bang.

There's no logic. Why do it?
The question cannot be applied.
There was on 'cause' to do it.

Emotional cause? concerning what?
Nothing existed.
Intellectual cause?
There was nothing to think about.

No logic. None by thought. None by heart.

 

[rojse]

Let's give it a try:

1- All matters that have a starting point come into existence by an earlier cause (example: a child is born after its mother gets pregnant)

2- Our universe is not eternal as it is around 14 billion years old

3- Therefore our universe came into existence around 14 billion years ago by a cause which preceded it

Let's call that cause (A), for now

The logical argument to follow that sequence is that if (A) is the origin of all what exists, (A) must itself be eternal, as if that was not the case (A) would need an earlier cause

The only solution therefore of the puzzle is that in fact (A) - the origin of all what exists - must be an eternal cause which is not constrained by the laws which govern this universe, and therefore (A) is the eternal free designer and creator of all that exists .....

Therefore The Eternal Creator - God - is not constrained by our own rules, as He is eternal and free, in the same way a software engineer who designs a robot is not constrained by the software he designs for building this robot

Makes sense?

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree.

You are saying that everything must have a cause (which I disagree with - snowflakes are a good example of a complex structure that is not artificially created, but I digress), but this causator must not. You've just pushed back the question of where everything comes from back one step without answering nothing.

Your other solution to the conundrum of (A), that you neglect to consider, is that the universe actually has no cause.

And all of your logic says nothing about the properties of (A) that so many theists assert, particularly that of benevolence.

Oh, yes, and frubals for an interesting response.

 

[rojse]

As syllogisms go, this is not a very good one. A better example of logic in action is:

1. I am a mechanic
2. All mechanics wear jumpsuits
3. Therefore I wear a jumpsuit

In this example, if premises 1 and 2 are true then the conclusion in 3 MUST also be true. That's how logic works.

I presented three different arguments, and tried to show how, logically speaking, that there might be multiple conclusions to these arguments (several of which I mentioned).

 

[Humanistheart]

Thief here...
One big example.... the big bang.

There's no logic. Why do it?
The question cannot be applied.
There was on 'cause' to do it.

Emotional cause? concerning what?
Nothing existed.
Intellectual cause?
There was nothing to think about.

No logic. None by thought. None by heart.

You don't really need to put your name on every post... anyway, I do not find this a compelling example. A rock falls into the ocean it's not a matter of intellectual or emotional cause. It's called gravity, which can be understood in a logical manner. Events will unfold in a logical manner weather or not a person is there to understand the logic.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....okay....I'll try....everyone points to it. It's an old habit that stuck.

I suppose the example of the big bang as an illogical act, could be difficult to wrap your imagination around.
Placing yourself in God's position...before the bang...could be 'uneasy'.

No light.....no sound....no gravity.

But stretch that imagination.
Your imagination is the problem solving part of your abilities.
Without your imagination, there are no problems you can solve, as formulating possible solutions would not happen.

 

[Humanistheart]

Thief here....okay....I'll try....everyone points to it. It's an old habit that stuck.

I suppose the example of the big bang as an illogical act, could be difficult to wrap your imagination around.
Placing yourself in God's position...before the bang...could be 'uneasy'.

No light.....no sound....no gravity.

But stretch that imagination.
Your imagination is the problem solving part of your abilities.
Without your imagination, there are no problems you can solve, as formulating possible solutions would not happen.

I'm not sure what your getting at... does this support an argument or conclusion, and if so, what is it supporting?

 

[Thief]

We humans cope with difficult topics in a variety of ways.

Topics about a pre-genesis God is especially difficult.
How do you discuss a situation of which no description can be applied?

How then to 'see' a God that had cause, reason, some intellect.

 

[Humanistheart]

We humans cope with difficult topics in a variety of ways.

Topics about a pre-genesis God is especially difficult.
How do you discuss a situation of which no description can be applied?

How then to 'see' a God that had cause, reason, some intellect.

There is no pre=genesis god, or any god, so a better question might be is the belief in god logical, or is the god depicted in the bible logical. However if you wish to aproach it from the perspective of one who believes in a god, as I think you do, than let me ask you, if god is so unknowable that we cannot apply the concept of logic to him, than how can you be sure you truly know anything about him? That's he's loving, that you'll be rewarded for you belief in him, that he exists, etc?

 

[rojse]

There is no pre=genesis god, or any god, so a better question might be is the belief in god logical, or is the god depicted in the bible logical.

The OP asks if God functions in the realm of logic or not. A presupposition of God in some form is quite obviously (to every other poster here) presumed.

 

[Humanistheart]

The OP asks if God functions in the realm of logic or not. A presupposition of God in some form is quite obviously (to every other poster here) presumed.

Of course, and my apologies for putting it in that manner. But you did not specify which god (although by your spelling I assumed you meant the christian god) or what actions you are reffering to. What I meant to convey was the question of how do we know what god's actions are? If we don't know his actions or have a specific definition of god, how can we really answer the OP?

 

[rojse]

Of course, and my apologies for putting it in that manner. But you did not specify which god (although by your spelling I assumed you meant the christian god) or what actions you are reffering to. What I meant to convey was the question of how do we know what god's actions are? If we don't know his actions or have a specific definition of god, how can we really answer the OP?

All posters are welcome to go with whatever view of God they worship.

In fact, if someone responded in the context of a non-Abrahamic God, that would nearly be worthy of frubals in of itself.

 

[Falvlun]

If God were omnipotent, basically he could say "duck - @ = eyeball" and that would be logical. If he wanted
1. All mechanics wear jumpsuit
2. I am a mechanic
3. Therefore, I am pink
Could be a valid argument.
He made logic; why couldn't he unmake it and replace it with something else?

That said, he might limit himself when operating within our universe, simply because those are the laws he made for this universe, and it would be kinda a waste to set down laws that you only intend to break.

Just my two cents anyway...

 

[Thief]

So what do we do about cause and effect?
The universe (one word) is all around us.
For every effect there is a cause.

A pre-genesis God would be incomprehensible.
How do you discuss such things.
Yet science would have us reduce and consider the universe in it's singularity, all the while not taking that next step to the pre-singularity.

Logic would be a collection of observations moving toward more thought.
God thinking is such a manner?
Seems impossible.
Especially at that point of genesis.

 

[rojse]

So what do we do about cause and effect?
The universe (one word) is all around us.
For every effect there is a cause.

A pre-genesis God would be incomprehensible.
How do you discuss such things.
Yet science would have us reduce and consider the universe in it's singularity, all the while not taking that next step to the pre-singularity.

Logic would be a collection of observations moving toward more thought.
God thinking is such a manner?
Seems impossible.
Especially at that point of genesis.

I don't view the matter merely in terms of cause and effect, but in regards to "can a simple event causes create a complex effect?" and I think that this can happen.

 

[Humanistheart]

All posters are welcome to go with whatever view of God they worship.

In fact, if someone responded in the context of a non-Abrahamic God, that would nearly be worthy of frubals in of itself.

Well, on those lines I would say then that Spinoza's god (simply being nature) would operate in logical terms.

 

[rojse]

Well, on those lines I would say then that Spinoza's god (simply being nature) would operate in logical terms.

I suppose when you view God in a pantheistic manner, there can only be one response.

 

[Cordoba]

Your other solution to the conundrum of (A), that you neglect to consider, is that the universe actually has no cause.

And all of your logic says nothing about the properties of (A) that so many theists assert, particularly that of benevolence.

Had the universe itself been eternal, it may not need a cause as you suggest

And that was the prevailing assumption made by some scientists in the 19th. century who were searching for a justification to reject the notion of God, The Creator of this amazing universe

But as we now know the universe is not eternal, and that it is around 14 billion years old, that assumption is no longer a valid assumption

The universe had a starting point, and therefore, logically speaking something must have brought it into existence .........

As for the properties of (A) which can so far be deduced is that:

1- He is Eternal (not constrained by time, as He designed the laws of this universe, including the laws which relate to time)

2- He is Intelligent and Knowledgeable, for having designed all these laws and for having created this amazing universe

3- He is Powerful and Mighty, for having implemented His design and brought it all into existence

His other attributes are related to why God created us and created this amazing universe .........

 

[Falvlun]

But as we now know the universe is not eternal, and that it is around 14 billion years old, that assumption is no longer a valid assumption

The universe had a starting point, and therefore, logically speaking something must have brought it into existence .........

I do not know enough about physics to argue your first point, but I'm pretty sure there's an "universe expands and then contracts and then expands again" theory that is out there. Basically, the universe is on a cosmic cycle, no beginning and no end. Has this theory gone out of favor or been refuted?

As for your second point, you have made the argument that something can not simply come to be on its own accord: it must have something else to start it. If this argument is to be taken as truth, then God must also have something that created him, and so on and so forth. If you posit an eternal God with no creator, why can you not also posit an eternal universe with no creator?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I presented three different arguments, and tried to show how, logically speaking, that there might be multiple conclusions to these arguments (several of which I mentioned).

You did indeed, but your statements did not apply the rules of logic. A logical syllogism is a set of premises and a conclusion such that if the premises are true the conclusion MUST be true. Logical conclusions are 100% certain if the premises are true. If there is a possibility that the premises are true but the conclusion is not, then the logic is faulty.