Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Frigidus]

The Argument from the Laws of Logic

1) The Laws of Logic exist

• A. Examples of laws of logic are:
  • i. A cannot be A and not A at the same time.
    ii. Something cannot bring itself into existence.

2) The Laws of logic are conceptual by nature

• A. Logic is a process of the mind

blah blah blah

Yeah Yeah Yeah...I'm my own Grandpa and we are all related to Kevin Bacon in some manner. A lovely exercise that proves nothing.

Again right from A-ii you are assuming creation. I go with the theory that matter has always existed.

So please tell me the answer to the questions:
1) Can A be A and not A at the same time? What?
2) Can something bring itself into existence? What?

WM

1)Certainly A can't be A and not A. How does that prove God? I disagreed with you here:

6) The laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent.

A. Since the laws of logic are conceptual, absolute, and transcendent and since conceptual realities require a mind, and since the conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them, then the mind that thinks the laws of logic is absolute and transcendent.
B. Therefore, there is an absolute, transcendent mind in existence.

2)You start off well enough, that logic is absolute. Fair enough. Then you state that logic requires a mind to understand/affirm it's existence. Unfotunately that claim can't be made, as earlier you said:

4) The Laws of logic are not the product of human minds

A. The laws of logic are absolute. Human beings' minds are not absolute. They differ. They disagree. Therefore, what is absolute to one person may or may not be absolute to another. Therefore, they are not the product of human minds.
B. The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists.

If logic doesn't depend on people why does it need something to affirm it? In fact if you did make the argument that logic does, in fact, need something to make it exist, humans would be the only logical solution. This line of reasoning, at least, falls short.

1) You are taking this out of context. No single on of these statements is meant to stand on its own in regards to this issue. You must look at all of them and use them together to argue the case.

What do you disagree with?
1) laws of logic are:

• a)conceptual
  b)absolute
  c)transcendent

2) conceptual realities require a mind
3) conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them

2)I simply stated that logic requires a mind. That does not mean the mind of a human.

Do you agree: The laws of logic are not dependent upon people since they are true whether or not people exists?

So by looking at #1 and #2 together.
-Concepts REQUIRE a mind
-Logic requires a mind
-Logic is not depended on a human mind.

There MUST be another mind? The creators mind.

WM

The point I disaree with you comes up after you say "logic requires a mind". This statement can be argued for or against, but even assuming that it is true a human mind fits the bill. If logic requires a mind shouldn't a human's mind be enough? Why does logic require a non-human mind?

[WidowMakers]

WidowMakers: I'm really very keen on hearing why you think that the translation you picked from Romans is correct.

Are the people of the world who are not Christian, really fools professing to be wise?

Did entire countries and empires really choose, en masse, in spite of the fact that it was obvious to them from the dawn of time, in spite of the fact that God's invisibility was clearly visible, really choose to ignore it to a man?

Was it really the case that only a few people born into a group chosen by God would ever be able to understand how obvious God was to those not chosen?

Are you honestly claiming that people in the stone age, in early Jewish societies, in China in the 10th century, in Japan in the modern day, indeed, anywhere where nobody or almost nobody could possibly have encountered Christianity or where Christianity is not a major religion... are you honestly claiming that these people were deliberately deceiving themselves that God didn't and doesn't exist?

Whatever your reasons are for using these quotes, I seriously think you need to justify the claims for massive cultural stupidity, corruption, deception, self-deception, lust, dishonour, and darkness that you have decided can be made against such a huge section of the human race.

What exactly did you mean, WidowMakers?

OOPS. I realize that I posted this in the wrong thread. This topic "Logic dictates there is a God" has nothing to do with the Bible. I meant to post this in the Jesus Freaks why do you Believe thread. I am sorry.

[WidowMakers]

The point I disaree with you comes up after you say "logic requires a mind". This statement can be argued for or against, but even assuming that it is true a human mind fits the bill. If logic requires a mind shouldn't a human's mind be enough? Why does logic require a non-human mind?

Because logic existed before humans.

So again if I use you last statement "If logic requires a mind shouldn't a human's mind be enough?"
1) laws of logic are:

• a)conceptual
  b)absolute
  c)transcendent

2) conceptual realities require a mind
3) conceptual realities reflect the mind thinking them

If conceptual realities (laws of logic) require a mind, have always existed (transcendent) and humans did not always exist, there must be another mind that came up with that concept.

The mind of the Creator (a transcendent absolute intelligent being).

WM

[Napoleon Ier]

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.

Stop right there.

You are already assuming that we know everything there is to know about matter and energy. Why must it "run down"? Perhaps matter and energy never get old. I would counter and say the universe IS infinitely old and we do not yet understand matter and it's working.

This nullifies all further points.

Then you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.

[heavycola]

3) As am I. I was simple showing that there are issues in relying solely on this theory to "prove" naturalistic beginnings.

4) My point was that all things in our universe require a cause. Since the cause cannot exist in the universe that did not exist before the cause, the cause must exist outside of the universe. A creator is that cause.

You now say what is the cause of the creator.
And I say why does the creator need a cause if our understanding of cause and effect is based inside our universe. I.E. A creator exists outside of our universe/laws/facts so we cannot understand him or his ways.

Basically regardless of our understand of the creator, if the universe could not have come into existence by itself, something must have made it.

5) Again God cannot be part of this universe because he could not have created it. Lets put it this way. If God is part of the universe that means the natural laws of the universe also apply to God. Then everything we have said earlier requires God to have a cause and be finite.

And if that is the case we are right back to "well what was the cause for everything and God?" And by looking over what was talked about, the answer is something outside or universe. Something that cannot be contained within the laws of it or th minds of man.

So we are back to the fact that a creator needs to exist outside our our universe.

Look, no one is going to "prove" anything. As we both agree, theoretical physics now suggests that particles can and do wink in and out of existence. I know enough about quantum physics to know that within its parameters is one explanation for the existence of the universe that - Occam's razor here - dispenses with the need for a super-complex intelligence to also exist. That is a HUGE saving. Nature is big on parsimony.

I know enough to know that physics suggests an origin for the universe that was contained within itself, in other words. I believe Stephen Hawking talked about the pre-inflationary cosmos being not a singularity, but rather a 'smear' of probabilities. It's not an intuitive concept - but neither is much of quantum theory. That doesn't detract from its applicability and accuracy, however.



But you inisist on adding an infinitely complex intelligence to the start of this process. It doesn't make sense. I keep bringing up the amount of complexity necessary for this creator to posess because the most complex object we know of - the human brain - took billions of years to develop and evolve, and so to tack on something far more complicated to th start of everything, especially when physics suggests it is entirely unecessary, makes no sense. Apply the argument from design to this creator!
You may argue again that whatever exists outside the boundary of space and time is not constrained by logic, physics, etc etc but that's not really an argument, it's a cop out. And it's unnecessary.

[Napoleon Ier]

p1. The cosmos

p1(a). has a beginning in timespace

or, if like Guiscard you believe (rather bizarrely) in stable universe theory,

The cosmos

p1(b). is contingent.

p2 The existance of a contingent entity requires an efficient cause

therefore

c That efficient cause is a creator.

By extension, hc's reasoning in the "modern physics dissproves Christianity" isn't entirely correct which leads him to that aforementioned errouneous conclusion.

[heavycola]

p1. The cosmos

p1(a). has a beginning in timespace

or, if like Guiscard you believe (rather bizarrely) in stable universe theory,

The cosmos

p1(b). is contingent.

p2 The existance of a contingent entity requires an efficient cause

therefore

c That efficient cause is a creator.

By extension, hc's reasoning in the "modern physics dissproves Christianity" isn't entirely correct which leads him to that aforementioned errouneous conclusion.

I didn't say modern physics disproves xianity at all. To start with, we are not, at present, discussing xianity at all.
Nothing here can be proven or disproven. I said that as I understand it, theoretical physics offers a possible explanation for a cosmos that contains within itself the reason for and cause of its own existence.

Tacking a superintelligent entity onto the end would therefore be wasteful and unneccessary.


Again, these arguments is a long way from answering why any creator would be an insecure meddler with a zombie for a son.

[Napoleon Ier]

Modern physics still cannot disprove any sturdily built version of the cosmological argument, and never will be able to. The big bang disproved stable universe theory, therefore meaning that not only is the argument from contigency valid, but so is the traditional cosmological argument.

[heavycola]

Modern physics still cannot disprove any sturdily built version of the cosmological argument, and never will be able to. The big bang disproved stable universe theory, therefore meaning that not only is the argument from contigency valid, but so is the traditional cosmological argument.

But nothing can prove or disprove any argument for the existence of god. I am simply discussing a framework in which the need to posit a creator vanishes.

It is only a theory. Much like the theory that a superintelligent being created everything, only without a superintelligent being, which, to me, makes a whole lot more sense.

[Backglass]

The Argument from Entropy and Uncaused Cause

1) The universe is not infinitely old because it has not "run down." (Entropy is the phenomena of increased chaos and loss of useful energy in a system.)

• A. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.

Stop right there.

You are already assuming that we know everything there is to know about matter and energy. Why must it "run down"? Perhaps matter and energy never get old. I would counter and say the universe IS infinitely old and we do not yet understand matter and it's working.

This nullifies all further points.

Then you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics.

You are already assuming that we know everything there is to know about matter and energy.

Modern physics still cannot disprove any sturdily built version of the cosmological argument, and never will be able to. The big bang disproved stable universe theory, therefore meaning that not only is the argument from contigency valid, but so is the traditional cosmological argument.

And yet...still no gods appear.

[Bavarian Raven]

i read some of this thread...and it gave me a headache...it is worse then Creatism vs evolution but science people here do not give up! though we cannot win against brainwashed people we can try...

[vtmarik]

against brainwashed people we can try...

Which ones? The "There are no gods and if you can't see that you're hopeless" group or the "There is a God, it's obvious, and if you can't see it then too bad" group?

Both of them are bad. It's Northern Ireland again, only with image macros and flame wars instead of car bombs and attrition.

[OnlyAmbrose]

You have no idea how much it bugs me when people are categorized as either "science people" or "God people."

[Neoteny]

Modern physics still cannot disprove any sturdily built version of the cosmological argument, and never will be able to. The big bang disproved stable universe theory, therefore meaning that not only is the argument from contigency valid, but so is the traditional cosmological argument.

Even if science cannot disprove the cosmological argument, that doesn't make it a valid argument for anything. Anything that I make up to represent the beginning of the universe (I'm partial to yeast, so I'm saying an intelligent yeast is the first cause) is a valid argument according to the cosmological argument. It's absurd.

Additionally, if everything has to have a cause, my yeast had to have a cause (an uncaused cause? how is that not a paradox?). The entire cosmological argument is ridiculous, whether or not it can be disproven by empirical testing.

[vtmarik]

You have no idea how much it bugs me when people are categorized as either "science people" or "God people."

Well, there are people who fit neither label like you and I, but there are the camps of course.

[Dancing Mustard]

You have no idea how much it bugs me when people are categorized as either "science people" or "God people."

Shut it, 'God boy'.

[wesso]

Since we really are only smart enough to be a dangerous spices on this tiny sphere floating through space, which we may or may not agree with, it is my observation that to base any theory on the creation of life as fact and argue about it is rather silly, we don't know, will never know, and couldn't prove it ever, unless we create a time machine witness it first hand and that would surely create a paradox. What is known is that evolution actually happens, and it is witnessed. Through documenting different species we see that change, in animals that are simple and reproduce faster the change is more obvious. Thus we have mutated virus (evolved really, bird flu anyone) and super bacteria immune to antibacterial medicines etc.

I can't disprove gods until I die, however as long as we believe they exist, just like santa. What I don't enjoy is religion controlling what they think is right or wrong. The bible says to drink the wine, but somehow my religious friends have translated the bible so that drinking wine is bad and we need to be in a dry county. So now I have to drive over an hour to get my beer and wine. Believe what you want but if it doesn't legally infringe on anyone, go away, and let me drink my beer safe from all the drunk christians driving back from the liquor store.

of course I could be completely wrong...

[Der Fuhrer]

f*ck off. There is no God. The closest thing to God that exists would be my person.

[MeDeFe]

There is no time as such, the past is not a place you can visit, and the future is not somewhere you're headed for, it's just an everchanging now.

[Snorri1234]

we need to be in a dry county.

Because that worked so well last time.

[Backglass]

Since we really are only smart enough to be a dangerous spices

Oregano? Basil? Cayenne!

[unriggable]

Since we really are only smart enough to be a dangerous spices on this tiny sphere floating through space, which we may or may not agree with, it is my observation that to base any theory on the creation of life as fact and argue about it is rather silly, we don't know, will never know, and couldn't prove it ever, unless we create a time machine witness it first hand and that would surely create a paradox. What is known is that evolution actually happens, and it is witnessed. Through documenting different species we see that change, in animals that are simple and reproduce faster the change is more obvious. Thus we have mutated virus (evolved really, bird flu anyone) and super bacteria immune to antibacterial medicines etc.

I can't disprove gods until I die, however as long as we believe they exist, just like santa. What I don't enjoy is religion controlling what they think is right or wrong. The bible says to drink the wine, but somehow my religious friends have translated the bible so that drinking wine is bad and we need to be in a dry county. So now I have to drive over an hour to get my beer and wine. Believe what you want but if it doesn't legally infringe on anyone, go away, and let me drink my beer safe from all the drunk christians driving back from the liquor store.

of course I could be completely wrong...

Probably the best first post ever?

[Snorri1234]

Logic dictates this thread gets resurrected.

[Snorri1234]

Man, this thread was great. A whopping 230 pages with noone changing their viewpoint.

[Neoteny]

FREE JAY!