My latest infatuation with logic.

[Reach]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Sure, heres a very basic and badly written cause:

Everything in the universe has to have a cause. If we follow back from now to the very original causes of what we have today, we know logically there has to be some initial cause. Therefore by definition God is the initial cause of the universe.

So you could say something had to put that initial "atom" that the universe originally was in place in place. According to the big bang theory.

I'll stick to the rules here and not turn this into a religion thread or a evolution thread, but there's a good basis for discussion here if people stay on track, so I'll comment on this.

Everything in the universe being causally linked is a fair argument to make. Mentally, it might not be entirely correct on the quantum level of the universe, but either way I think there are ample reasons to argue this is in fact the case - everything in our universe has a cause.

So, there would have to be an initial cause. There would have to exist some irreducibly complex portion of reality that 1. If reduced further would result in nothing or 2. Would result in the inability to cause anything.

However, jumping out and saying "Therefore, God" is a bit of an odd conclusion. The 'cause' could be one of many different things. Does that mean God is an ambiguous concept - a filler word used to describe what we don't know? In that case I won't disagree with you.


Scientifically, it's quite clear that the initial 'cause' within our universe was the Big Bang. The big bang was not an initial atom per say - there was no real mass in the original universe. Rather, it was only energy, and the big bang was a rapid expansion of that energy which therein created space and time, and thus space-time. All matter was subsequently created from the big bang (An easy way to understand this is through E=MC^2 - Energy is mass, but manifested differently...they are equivalents but not manifestly the same thing, so they can be exchanged).


So, God put the initial cause of the Big Bang into place? That still doesn't tell me what God is. God could be quantum mechanics under this ambiguous definition. Along the lines of what Squeek said, if there was an initial system, it would have by definition some energy associated with it, and also by definition this energy would be subject to indeterminate subtle changes or fluctuations on the quantum level. These fluctuations would happen infinitely in number, all simultaneously in the absence of time to differentiate between quantum events, and if one of these vaccuum fluctuations was large enough, in theory it could cause the energy around it to rush in opposite directions.

And thus we have the Big Bang.

So, in conclusion - I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just think your argument is empty and unspecific. God could be anything in your argument. It's a classic 'God of the Gaps' argument, where God is some undefined process or thing that explains what we currently cannot explain.

By definition God always is, if God made our universe including time then he does not need a beginning nor an end. Therefore if God has no beginning nor end then he is not created. (Notice no science was needed here, just logic.)

Again, my problem with this is that our definition of God is ambiguous and unspecific. If God is not created he could be anything, such as energy itself (From Thermodynamics), and thus I see no reason to refer to it as God (Just call it the First Law of Thermodynamics, or Energy). He could also be Quantum mechanisms, other various laws or theories, or something we currently don't understand.

None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity...and thus my objections. If you want to start talking about Quantum Christianity I suggest you just start studying science instead of ripping off facts from science and twisting them to fit a preconceived world view :P

[Afrobean]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Sure, heres a very basic and badly written cause:

Everything in the universe has to have a cause. If we follow back from now to the very original causes of what we have today, we know logically there has to be some initial cause. Therefore by definition God is the initial cause of the universe.

So you could say something had to put that initial "atom" that the universe originally was in place in place. According to the big bang theory.

That's not a logical support of ANYTHING based in religion.

All you are doing is saying "there was something before the Big Bang" and "I believe that something is God". There is no evidence suggesting your conclusion, but your own existing beliefs build the conclusion for you. You know that what came before the Big Bang is unknown and you believe in god, so you draw the conclusion that it was God. If it was logical, it would not be built upon a belief without evidence.

Basically, if the idea of God never existed, the idea would never even enter the equation here. No one would be trying to think of what came before the Big Bang and say "I know! A supernatural being who is omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing, and invisible did it!" If the concept of God had never been invented that would be looked at as an absurd explanation of what caused the Big Bang. Reason? There is no evidence to point to that being the cause.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics

To be honest hardly understood much more then the intro of this wiki, but this is a good outline of the formal name given to the logical thinking of faith.

If you really believe that you are open minded about the world go out and try to grab a book of Christian Apologetics. They logically go through and try to prove things through logic, not through bible bashing or what have you. They simply start off with a belief of nothing and logically work there way through to Christian belief. (Yes that means most of this is not simply stating the bible and ignoring all else, including going through and logically looking at the beliefs of other religions.)

If their ending point is still completely in line with Christianity, then this would be an example of them starting at the finish and working backward. Sort of what you did with the Big Bang example. You're taking the thing you already believe to be true and working backwards to get to it.

And I'm not even going to bother looking at the thing you pointed to because I don't feel like facepalming at all the stupid crap they put forth that they use to try to prove that a man is a god, even though he's been dead for thousands of years, they've never met him or met anyone who has met him, and they've only read about in a mostly anonymously scribed book that was written hundreds of years after the guy was already dead. I'm annoyed enough by the pseudoscience I've seen from people trying to prove a banana HAD TO HAVE BEEN INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED to fit in a human's hand. There's no way the banana could have coincidentally formed in that size and there is absolutely no way that the plant could have evolved that trait after an extended period of time wherein natural selection would have made the fruit grow at a size where more animals would be more likely to eat the fruit.

It really does sound that you have a problem with simply taking things on faith even though that is the point of religion, and if that is the case, religion is probably not for you. Maybe you should have a look at humanistic atheism. That'll give you all the great things religion can without expecting you to believe things which are unverifiable. And best of all, you won't look silly trying to prove to atheists how logical you are being in your unverifiable beliefs.

ps

By definition God always is, if God made our universe including time then he does not need a beginning nor an end. Therefore if God has no beginning nor end then he is not created. (Notice no science was needed here, just logic.)

No, that's not logical, because your taking a leap of faith at the very beginning without saying so. You're assuming God is a real thing without evidence suggesting it, then you're using that assumption to build upon into something else. You are taking God as a given; that is simply not the case.

pps hi rech ur rly smart

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity...and thus my objections. If you want to start talking about Quantum Christianity suggest you just start studying science instead of ripping off facts from science and twisting them to fit a preconceived world view :P

Not at all, but logically this means there has to be some sort of something that created the universe. This is just one of many foundations of which are very necessary to logically explain Christianity.

I can't go through them all, but a book of apologetics can. This was just an example to show how logic can be outside science. And its great to start off with the fact that there is something outside of materialism to kill off this Science word contradicting faith.

Now to start with Afro's post....

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Afro, alot of your post seems to be rather close minded and an attack at religion in general and an attack at my credibility and the credibility of what is at hand. I don't see why this argument has to be personal.

No, that's not logical, because your taking a leap of faith at the very beginning without saying so. You're assuming God is a real thing without evidence suggesting it, then you're using that assumption to build upon into something else. You are taking God as a given; that is simply not the case.

That quote you have taken there was after the proof of causality, the proof that the universe and time need a beginning, from there I expanded on the idea that if something created time, the creator of time can not be part of time and thus can't be created.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. It's just simple logical look at the need for there to be something outside of the universe. You don't need to tie it to Christianity.

[Reach]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Not at all, but logically this means there has to be some sort of something that created the universe. This is just one of many foundations of which are very necessary to logically explain Christianity.

I can't go through them all, but a book of apologetics can. This was just an example to show how logic can be outside science. And its great to start off with the fact that there is something outside of materialism to kill off this Science word contradicting faith.

Now to start with Afro's post....

Right, some sort of something. I agree. Still, my point remains - you nor I know what that is, and there are *MANY* different options here.

I've read all of this material, and the vast majority of books and arguments on these topics before. It was an obsession of mine for years when I was a Christian. I understand where you're coming from.

I think the problem here is this: If you wanted to objectively show that Christianity was the one and only universally true world view, you've got a hell of a lot more problems then simply dealing with the origin of the universe. Even if you could objectively show the prime mover in the origin of all creation was something equivalent of a mind with processes differentiating it from simple laws of mechanics, this has very little connection with Christianity. The entire foundation of Christianity is based on Jesus and his teachings and the LORD and the word he has laid out for mankind through his son - most of which is contained in the bible (NT, since Christianity shares the OT or Torah with Judaism).

And you're going to run into problem, after problem, after problem trying to logically demonstrate any of this as being literally true. Metaphorically or allegorically true, sure, you could argue that creation is allegorically true, but how that relates to reality remains ambiguous and unexplained. You'll run yourself into circles forever.


Anyway, I don't want to get too into specifics here, since this isn't a religious discussion per say, but all of my points made from the previous post stand.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

I get what you are saying until you started on the foundation of Christianity.

What will I have problems explaining as literally true? Creation is one of the few examples I can understand your point of view. I mean creation to me is defiantly a grey area. Personally I black and white I can logically know that God literally created the universe. I have trouble trying to discern how much of Genesis is literal. However I do feel that the main point of Genesis is not lost to much on the literal meaning.

[Afrobean]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Afro, alot of your post seems to be rather close minded and an attack at religion in general and an attack at my credibility and the credibility of what is at hand. I don't see why this argument has to be personal.

I'm not attacking religion at all. All I've said is that it's based on faith rather than logic and to attempt a logic argument in favor of OR AGAINST is to entirely miss the point of religion.

If you interpret that as an attack, then I submit that you do not understand your faith or the difference between the function of faith and the function of reason. If you see me calling creationism psuedoscience as an attack on religion, you really don't get it.

The closest thing to an attack against religion was when I tried to point you to humanistic atheism. But I was being totally sincere. You seem to desire something out of religion but still want to adhere to logic and reason. That would allow you to do so and would also not leave you in a position such as this, trying to claim how reasoned your position is when the fact is that all that you argue for is based on a foundation of unverifiable faith. Build logic around it all you want, but it all starts with faith in the unverifiable.

That quote you have taken there was after the proof of causality, the proof that the universe and time need a beginning, from there I expanded on the idea that if something created time, the creator of time can not be part of time and thus can't be created.

Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument. It's just simple logical look at the need for there to be something outside of the universe. You don't need to tie it to Christianity.

My point still stands that you're taking God as a given. By taking that as a given, you're starting with a leap of faith and attempting to build logic around it. That's not bad in and of itself, but to claim that the entire thing is logical for that is wrong. You started with a seed of faith, but you overlooked that somewhere along the way.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

I'm not attacking religion at all. All I've said is that it's based on faith rather than logic and to attempt a logic argument in favor of OR AGAINST is to entirely miss the point of religion.

If you interpret that as an attack, then I submit that you do not understand your faith or the difference between the function of faith and the function of reason. If you see me calling creationism psuedoscience as an attack on religion, you really don't get it.

Sorry, I obviously generalized your post quite a bit. But it did feel more ranty then logical. I may have been wrong.

How is trying to think about faith logically against religion? I think logic is incredibly important to religion. How can I fully engage in a relationship with a God that I do not logically understand? Dosn't a belief with logic behind it mean so much more then an empty belief?

Obviously belief in a faith can not come purely from logic, but in no way do I believe that true faith should be illogical.

My original topic of discussion was the idea that we are created with the ability to comprehend logic for a reason. I wanted to hear what you guys think of that notion. I am curious if you see the ability to discern logic as just evolutionary.

[Reach]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

I get what you are saying until you started on the foundation of Christianity.

What will I have problems explaining as literally true? Creation is one of the few examples I can understand your point of view. I mean creation to me is defiantly a grey area. Personally I black and white I can logically know that God literally created the universe. I have trouble trying to discern how much of Genesis is literal. However I do feel that the main point of Genesis is not lost to much on the literal meaning.

Creation was just one example, but you're going to have problems with any part of the bible. Given this isn't a religious discussion, I don't want to get into specifics, but I will reiterate my argument in a slightly different way: There are certain defining features of Christianity, obviously. They are necessary in order to differentiate between Christianity and other religions, and therefore they would *necessarily* need to be true if you wanted to demonstrate it was a universally true world view.

The problem is you can show almost nothing in the bible to be empirically true. The original Hebrew texts have been translated and re-translated numerous times, so to begin with it's hard to even identify what pieces of scripture could be considered the word of God and which are man made manipulations. Not all of the original Hebrew is understood to begin with.

Also, there is no way to differentiate between which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal. The only way you'd be able to demonstrate anything would be to take a literal interpretation of the ENTIRE bible, but obviously you can't do that because you can empirically demonstrate numerous claims in the bible to be false, so if it were true it can't be literal.

And thus begins the endless circle I described. The very reason people continue to debate this issue. There is no way of demonstrating Christianity to be correct and attempting to do so leads to problem after problem.


That's not to say we can't continue to deepen our understanding of the universe around us, whether it be through an entirely scientific perspective or a theological one. I know for me personally, it is the understanding of the universe and the truth it contains that is important to me, not which criteria this truth happens to meet.

[Afrobean]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Sorry, I obviously generalized your post quite a bit. But it did feel more ranty then logical. I may have been wrong.

How is trying to think about faith logically against religion? I think logic is incredibly important to religion. How can I fully engage in a relationship with a God that I do not logically understand?

Because by definition, he is beyond our understanding.

Dosn't a belief with logic behind it mean so much more then an empty belief?

No, but propping logic around a belief doesn't suddenly make the whole thing logical. It's still a belief that you hold for reasons of faith, just you have it surrounded by the best reason you can come up with.

Obviously belief in a faith can not come purely from logic, but in no way do I believe that true faith should be illogical.

If a person believed something which was WHOLLY illogical, I'll admit that that would be a problem, but sadly, from where I'm sitting, many beliefs held by many religious fools ARE wholly illogical. Not lumping you in there by any means, I'm really thinking of the sort of people who refuse science in favor of **** that makes no sense. The sort of person who considers creationism as legitimate science.

My original topic of discussion was the idea that we are created with the ability to comprehend logic for a reason. I wanted to hear what you guys think of that notion. I am curious if you see the ability to discern logic as just evolutionary.

Logic is just an abstract ability our brains "accidentally" developed. The smarter of our species kept multiplying while the stupider died. In time, that led to increased intelligence and the abstract understanding that came with that led on to become the entire nature of humanity. Language, mathematics, recorded history, and logic. Really just accidents, sort of. Natural selection made us smarter and we used that smartness to create something external.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

The problem is you can show almost nothing in the bible to be empirically true. The original Hebrew texts have been translated and re-translated numerous times, so to begin with it's hard to even identify what pieces of scripture could be considered the word of God and which are man made manipulations. Not all of the original Hebrew is understood to begin with.

Cool, I get where you are coming from for sure. You have to admit though the difference between materialism and an idea that there is potentially so much more then that does make the ideals of Christianity so much more obtainable. (Which im sure you do).

As for the old testament original texts I know not all that much. The new testament though is incredibly hard to refute from an authenticity of sources point of view and is incredibly easy to understand.

Also, there is no way to differentiate between which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal. The only way you'd be able to demonstrate anything would be to take a literal interpretation of the ENTIRE bible, but obviously you can't do that because you can empirically demonstrate numerous claims in the bible to be false, so if it were true it can't be literal.

There are proper ways to read the bible. Most importantly to look at the context and intent of the author. If some sections of the bible are harder to interpret in a black and white fashion then I hardly see how that will matter in the scheme of what you should already believe from the black and white bits.

The only real problem I can see is where the Bible claims an empirically measurable fact as a belief and is wrong. I mean the bible describes the Earth as flat, but it in no way was claiming to be correct about it, it is just a consequence of it being written in a certain context.

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Because by definition, he is beyond our understanding.

A higher being can meet a lower being where they are. Im talking about a lower being having the capacity to have far better relationship with logic then without.

No, but propping logic around a belief doesn't suddenly make the whole thing logical. It's still a belief that you hold for reasons of faith, just you have it surrounded by the best reason you can come up with.

Logic is logic though? If logic propped up around a belief is illogical then you can attack the logic and the person is left with an illogical belief. If the person has a logical belief that holds up to the rigor of logic then surely that belief is logical?

Logic is just an abstract ability our brains "accidentally" developed. The smarter of our species kept multiplying while the stupider died. In time, that led to increased intelligence and the abstract understanding that came with that led on to become the entire nature of humanity. Language, mathematics, recorded history, and logic. Really just accidents, sort of. Natural selection made us smarter and we used that smartness to create something external.

How does the ability to comprehend the beauty of art honestly help natural selection?

Also if our logic is accidental how can we believe what we obtain from the logic to be true? Therefore a belief in accidental logic is illogical.

[MrRubix]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

"Why do we as humans find such a joy and beauty in logic? Can we really ride it off as purely evolutionary? As purely survivalist?
I obviously believe that this side of our being is a gift from God, I believe that we are given an ability to understand so that we can appreciate and take awe in the awesomeness in our creator. How can one with out the ability to think enjoy? How can one with out the ability to think praise and love?"

Sure, I can ride it off as evolutionary, why not? I like logic because it's another form of problemsolving, to me, that aims to unveil truth and understanding about various things in our world. You need to be careful though when it comes to proofs, since it's easy to fall into the trap of using assumptions we don't necessarily know to be valid/true/sound/whatever.

I'll just add though that just because we are able to think/appreciate/understand/enjoy things, it does not mean it had a purpose or that it was with the intention of "seeing the awesomeness of our creator." I can just as easily argue that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence.

Be waaaryyyy of the loooggggiiiccc

[windsurfer-sp]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

Rubix, I put the question out there and a potential answer. I never said I was right. Im wanting to see your "arguments that they're all the results of physical/evolutionary processes and necessary conditions, and with plenty of evidence."

It honestly dosn't strike anyone that as far as we empirically know we are the only ones in the universe who have a sense of beuaty? We are the only ones who find delight in pondering about how our universe works? Where we came from and why? Making fun of Creationists....errr, opps.

Does anyone want to show me how pretty paintings have helped our survival?

[Ice wolf]

Re: My latest infatuation with logic.

@OP: Because being logical is better than being illogical. There's really no critical thinking involved here...