Logic dictates that there is a God!

[jonesthecurl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A&feature=related

LMFAO

oh, that one was priceless.

It reminded me of another sort of brain-dead extremist I encountered once at a CND meeting (bomb protesters) - a woman claimed that all men should be banned from the meeting because the nuclear missiles were shaped like penises. (honestly!)

[Backglass]

I just got out of my Creationism class last quarter, and it was the biggest joke in the class on both sides (religious vs nonreligious). 100% of the class agreed it was comical, and many believed that it was a joke because there's no way anyone could be that stupid .

Interesting. There may be hope for America yet. The deluded zealots forcing religious creationism into the Science class may find it has the opposite effect it was intended to have.

[heavycola]

oh deary me. That was funny.

[Backglass]

oh deary me. That was funny.

Ahhh...the "Banana is obviously designed by God" video.

This can only mean that the Pineapple is the work of Satan. Too large to fit in your hand and covered with sharp spiky fronds. The lengths the delusional will go to "wish" their fairy tales true is astonishing.

And what of the Durian? Hmmm? (waits while those who have never left the US border do a little googling).

[jonesthecurl]

oh deary me. That was funny.

Ahhh...the "Banana is obviously designed by God" video.

This can only mean that the Pineapple is the work of Satan. Too large to fit in your hand and covered with sharp spiky fronds. The lengths the delusional will go to "wish" their fairy tales true is astonishing.

And what of the Durian? Hmmm? (waits while those who have never left the US border do a little googling).

The pineapple was obviously designed as an instrument of torture for the inquisition.
Who was that reggae guy that said"Watch it or I'll give you the rough end of a pineapple?"

[heavycola]

oh deary me. That was funny.

Ahhh...the "Banana is obviously designed by God" video.

This can only mean that the Pineapple is the work of Satan. Too large to fit in your hand and covered with sharp spiky fronds. The lengths the delusional will go to "wish" their fairy tales true is astonishing.

And what of the Durian? Hmmm? (waits while those who have never left the US border do a little googling).

I don't know who designed the durian. Possibly a minor deity on an internship.

[Dancing Mustard]

I don't know who designed the durian. Possibly a minor deity on an internship.

You're referring of course to one of the Apocrypha's most renowned 'lost works'; or more specifically, the scroll entitled "The Eighth Day - On which God created particularly useless vegetables when he got a bit bored watching Countdown"

[Neoteny]

Wow I wasn't active on this forum for three months. I came back and what did I see?

"Logic dictates that there is a God!" is still number one topic on the list... This is truly a miracle!

its quite a touchy subject for both sides... people like to prove others wrong

Once again, appropriate.

[joecoolfrog]

oh deary me. That was funny.

Ahhh...the "Banana is obviously designed by God" video.

This can only mean that the Pineapple is the work of Satan. Too large to fit in your hand and covered with sharp spiky fronds. The lengths the delusional will go to "wish" their fairy tales true is astonishing.

And what of the Durian? Hmmm? (waits while those who have never left the US border do a little googling).

I dont think anybody can deny that the Durian is the work of Satan !

[jonesthecurl]

I don't know who designed the durian. Possibly a minor deity on an internship.

You're referring of course to one of the Apocrypha's most renowned 'lost works'; or more specifically, the scroll entitled "The Eighth Day - On which God created particularly useless vegetables when he got a bit bored watching Countdown"

He was quite busy that day - he also designed the arm movements for Irish Dancing, but unfortunately forgot to inspire anyone to write them down.

[Gregrios]

Wow I wasn't active on this forum for three months. I came back and what did I see?

"Logic dictates that there is a God!" is still number one topic on the list... This is truly a miracle!

its quite a touchy subject for both sides... people like to prove others wrong

Once again, appropriate.

Appropriate and might I add very funny.

[Backglass]

[daddy1gringo]

Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.1
Actually, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified, and originating new information that is more specified.
Although the bacteria under investigation gained the ability to process citrate, it was likely (although we do not yet know for sure) caused by the loss of their enzyme’s ability to recognize only glucose. It could also represent the expression of a pre-existing but dormant gene—again, nothing new. After all those generations, the tested bacteria remain the same genus and species, Escherichia coli. So far, the bacteria reproduce “according to their own kinds,” just as Genesis states.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that an adaptation proves evolution which proves no such thing. I'm working on the genome one.

[suggs]

I always love bringing up ring species in these kinds of discussions. Sadly, I've never seen anyone successfully explain them away. I chuckle at species distinctions.

bet you're a riot on a Friday night

[jonesthecurl]

I always love bringing up ring species in these kinds of discussions. Sadly, I've never seen anyone successfully explain them away. I chuckle at species distinctions.

bet you're a riot on a Friday night

You should see him try on ladies' hats at parties.

[Jenos Ridan]

Back in 1988, researchers placed bacteria in an environment that pressured them to evolve the ability to metabolize (eat) citrate instead of the standard glucose. After 31,500 generations and 20 years, the bacteria finally ate citrate.1
Actually, this does represent new information acquired by the bacteria. However, the kind of information is critical to the question of whether Darwinian evolution has taken place. There is a difference between originating new information that is less specified, and originating new information that is more specified.
Although the bacteria under investigation gained the ability to process citrate, it was likely (although we do not yet know for sure) caused by the loss of their enzyme’s ability to recognize only glucose. It could also represent the expression of a pre-existing but dormant gene—again, nothing new. After all those generations, the tested bacteria remain the same genus and species, Escherichia coli. So far, the bacteria reproduce “according to their own kinds,” just as Genesis states.

Once again, you jump to the conclusion that an adaptation proves evolution which proves no such thing. I'm working on the genome one.

That's a good one D1G, I can't seem to find the philosophical post I made so I'll repost it here:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).

2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.


----Originally postulated by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris, found on a pamphlet I read when I was last at college.

[ParadiceCity9]

Uh, just to throw it out there, the Universe was created when the membranes of two universes collided.

So all of you are wrong...
The real debated should be about what created any matter.

[WidowMakers]

Uh, just to throw it out there, the Universe was created when the membranes of two universes collided.

So all of you are wrong...
The real debated should be about what created any matter.

Well here are the three possible scenarios for the beginning of the universe. I am posting from this site here ORIGINAL SITE

The existence of God has long been unquestioned. Every culture has some form of worship of a God or many gods. Man has believed in the supernatural since his beginnings. Some might say that man has created God out of a need to feel importance or belonging. At many universities today, this philosophy is seen as the ultimate understanding of the nature of man, and thus, it is the responsibility of the university to instill this philosophy into the minds of all graduates. It is thought that man feels the existence of God because he wants to. But could it be that this awareness of God was put there by God Himself? I would contend that it was.

I believe that God exists. I would suggest that the existence of God is not a matter of blind faith in something that cannot be seen, but a logical conclusion based on rational thinking. To begin: the universe exists. If this point is not granted, then we might as well not even have this discussion. But if it is granted, then I think the existence of God can be logically assumed based on the following observations.

There are only three possible solutions to the question of where the universe came from:
1. The universe has always been.
If the universe has always been here, there is no need for a Creator. However, if the universe has always been here, you can't be reading this article. Consider the following line:

Click image to enlarge.

Let's say the left arrow represents negative infinity, or infinity past, and the right arrow represents positive infinity, or infinity future. If the universe has always been here, it did not have a beginning, and it will not have an end. Now, let's try an experiment. Let's put a point on this line of infinity:

Click image to enlarge.

How much time is before this point? Yes, infinity. How about after the point? Yes, infinity. No matter where you put the point on that line, there is an infinite amount of time before and after it. Let's put one more point on the line, though:

Click image to enlarge.

Now, how much time is before the first point? Infinity. After it? Infinity. What about the second point? Infinity before and after it. By definition, now, the first and second points are in the exact same location, because we have infinity going in not one but two directions. In other words, logic forces us to conclude that they are the same point in time. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli put it this way:

If, in order to reach a certain end, infinitely many steps had to precede it, could the end ever be reached? Of course not--not even in an infinite time. For an infinite time would be unending, just as the steps would be. In other words, no end would be reached. The task would--could--never be completed.

...In fact, no step in the sequence could be reached, because an infinity of steps must always have preceded any step; must always have been gone through one by one before it. The problem comes from supposing that an infinite sequence could ever reach, by temporal succession, any point at all.

...if the universe...is infinitely old, then an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed before (say) today. And so an infinite number of days must have been completed--one day succeeding another, one bit of time being added to what went before--in order for the present day to arrive. But this exactly parallels the problem of an infinite task. If the present day has been reached, then the actually infinite sequence of history has reached this present point: in fact, has been completed up to this point--for at any present point the whole past must already have happened. But an infinite sequence of steps could never have reached this present point--or any point before it.

So, either the present day has not been reached, or the process of reaching it was not infinite. But obviously the present day has been reached. So the process of reaching it was not infinite...1

That's why the universe can't be infinite: if time is infinite, then sequential events cannot occur. So option one is not an option, after all.

2. The universe created itself.
This is what many scientists believe today, but it fails the test of logic. The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe created itself: one moment there was nothing; the next moment the entire universe appeared. Most people can see the problem here. If there was ever nothing, then there could never be anything, because something can't come from nothing. As Dr. William Lane Craig put it:

Very simply...something cannot come out of absolutely nothing. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity. The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity...On the atheistic hypothesis, there did not even exist the potentiality for the existence of the universe. But then it seems inconceivable that the universe should become actual if there did not exist any potentiality for its existence. It seems to me therefore that a little reflection leads us to the conclusion that the origin of the universe had a cause.2

So number two is not an option either. There's only one left:

3. The universe was created.
The problems that plague the first two explanations do not plague the last. If the universe (space, time, matter) was created, then we do not have the problem of infinite time (the Creator is infinite, but time is not), nor the problem of something coming from nothing (since the Creator is infinite, He did not have a beginning, so there is no need to believe that He came from nothing). Since there are no other options, this is the only answer as to where the universe came from, and it's found in Genesis chapter 1 verse 1: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."

1. Kreeft, Peter and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 59. Buy it from Amazon.com
2. Craig, William Lane, http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcrai ... ation.html

And I hope that explains your question"what created matter" Since a thing cannot create itself (as we have seen above) then something had to create matter. It does not matter what type of mathematical formulas or equations we come up with, something cannot be its own cause.

So once again. Since the universe cannot be infinity old(#1) and matter cannot create itself or be its own cause (#2), how did the universe come to exist? Ask yourself that question!

WM

[Neoteny]

I always love bringing up ring species in these kinds of discussions. Sadly, I've never seen anyone successfully explain them away. I chuckle at species distinctions.

bet you're a riot on a Friday night

Chicks dig rift valleys.

[F1fth]

Firstly, how can you start with the line:

The existence of God has long been unquestioned

Lots of people have questioned it. I'm doing it right now. To assert that it's unquestioned using the proof that lots of cultures have creation myths is ridiculous.

Now, for content:

Now, how much time is before the first point? Infinity. After it? Infinity. What about the second point? Infinity before and after it. By definition, now, the first and second points are in the exact same location, because we have infinity going in not one but two directions. In other words, logic forces us to conclude that they are the same point in time.

This "logic" is flawed and option 1 certainly is possible. Numbers are infinite, are they not? You can count into the positive for infinity, and you can count into the negative for infinity, yes? Does that mean 1=2? No, it does not, meaning that you can in fact argue (easily) that you can differentiate between points if infinity exists.

This is what many scientists believe today, but it fails the test of logic. The Big Bang theory tells us that the universe created itself: one moment there was nothing; the next moment the entire universe appeared. Most people can see the problem here. If there was ever nothing, then there could never be anything, because something can't come from nothing.

First, the Big Bang only states that at one point the Universe was compressed, and at some point it exploded and is expanding. It never says that there was nothing and then there was something. The only thing that does that it... oh shit it's God. Where did he come from? You said yourself something can't come from nothing and now you contradict yourself.

Now, that silliness put aside, yes; We cannot explain the creation of the universe. But how is that in any way reasoning that we should believe in a god, or evidence that such a being exists? You're asserting that we know everything about the universe, which, last time I checked, we don't.

Given no empirical evidence that a god exists, how is a illogical to assume it does not? The Bible isn't proof. One can write fiction as easily as fact. And on that vein, why is it so hard to believe that a horribly ancient people thousands of years ago couldn't explain existence, so they made some things up? It makes a lot more sense than the content of the Bible, but now I'm getting to a different argument altogether.

Point is: believing in god is faith. If you choose to take that leap, fine by me. But don't trump it up as if it is the "logical" answer.

[ParadiceCity9]

Another thing, this whole 'something can't come from nothing' thing, energy can turn into matter and vice versa.
Unless I interpreted something wrong on a TV show that is.

[Iliad]

How is thinking there is a creator logical? Surely a being which can create this world is even more complex. And who created the creator? How does a creator explain the beginning of the universe? If the creator created himself why can't the universe create itself.

No we cannot explain the beginning of the universe, completely right now. That's the difference between science and blind faith, the science move forward.

Also you're thinking of the beginning of the universe in the wrong way. We have a rather simple conception of beginning
Time when object wasn't here Time when the object is created Time when the object is here
You're trying to measure infinity with a 30cm ruler, it just won't work. Our normal way of seeing things begin doesn't work with the universe because there wasn't anything before the universe began because there was no space or time before the universe began. Your infinite argument has been refuted. You cannot treat infinity normally.


About the whole religion in every tribe: this only shows the flaws in religion. Imagine cavemen, if this point is not granted, then we might as well not even have this discussion( ), that see fire, that see stars, see plants around them blossom during times and plants that have fruits that can be eaten grown at times. Yet the question why plagues them. They explain it as magic. AS time goes on and the cavemen slowly become more and more educated. And so the gods do with them. By the Greeks and Egyptians the gods are not just a being attributed to one aspect, they have personalities, stories, they are uniform for countries instead of one tribe, they are much more complex and they get much more worship. Polytheism rules the religion sector for a long time until boom monotheism is here. Belief that there is only one god and the religions of that quickly spreads.

There is no feeling of god in people. This does not show that. IT shows that people from the earlies of ages had been curious about the world around them and the answer "god did it" seems to satisfy them. There is no feeling of god. If a god did exist then surely he could've been more obvious?

Another point is that how do you know christianity, is the right religion out of all those religions throughout the years? How do you know it's not Judaism or Islam? Or the aboriginal dreaming beliefs? Or the followign of the aztec god with lots of q, t, and z?

If you do want to look at the world logically it becomes quite clear that there is no evidence for god, and rather the obvious. And to finish this off, a Richard dawkins quote:
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

[MeDeFe]

That's a good one D1G, I can't seem to find the philosophical post I made so I'll repost it here:

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligibility.).

2. The existence of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation

(logical deduction from #1)

3. No rational person should accept 2a. (Confirmed by the definition of rationality.)

4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.

5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essence of the thing to be explained requires it's existence.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.

6. The existence of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.

7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.

8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.

9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.

10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.


----Originally postulated by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris, found on a pamphlet I read when I was last at college.

And here we go again. Version 1.2 with a commentary already... And you, Jenos, have so far not once responded to my reponse to your little pamphlet, you're running out of credibility.


First of all, I'm working under a relativistic definition of 'explanation', me not pointing this out caused some confusion a while back and I'm trying to avoid making the same mistake again.
Any explanation is relative to and limited by humans and their knowledge and what humans and human technology can perceive. There might be a causal chain for every phenomenon, but if the chain can not (at least in theory) be recreated by humans the phenomenon will not have an explanation (or at least not a full explanation). This does not in any way make it magical (Nappy claimed I was saying that in the other thread), just unexplainable. I think it likely that at some point the particles (or maybe dimensions) being dealt with will be so small that there's not even a theoretical chance of showing that they exist.

1. intelligible - understandable, in the way that you can "get your mind around it", but where is the prerequisite of an explanation? Personally I'm quite happy to let, say, gravity go on and be something that comes with matter and just is. There are degrees of understanding as well, it's not a 1/0 issue.

And understandable in what way? In the way it works? That would in this case be the physical laws and whatnot. In 'where it all came from'? I'm not convinced knowing exactly down to the last detail how the universe started (or if it ever did) is necessary to understand the basic workings of the universe.

2. has just fallen flat on its face because there's a third option of partial understanding, but I'm not done yet, even if we allow for only his two options and disregard 3. that "We cannot ever fully understand the unvierse and where it came from" is not all that irrational and nicely allows a person to get on with other stuff than posting on an internet forum.

4. is correct under my previously stated premises, you need to disregard the problems with the first 3 points in order to accept this one. While there might well be a causal chain for the universe, there is nothing to say there's a full explanation for it.

5. Back in my first reply I accepted this one. No more...
There's really only one sort of explanation, which is really more accurately termed 'description': we see phenomenon A and can list the factors which caused the phenomenon, then we can list the factors that caused the factors causing A to come about and so on. At some point, though, we're forced to say that we observe entities with certain distinguishing features behave in a certain way under certain conditions, but can not (yet) say why they behave that way. This applies to all explanations, be they of scientific phenomena (why does this rubber ball bounce back if I throw it against a wall?) or human behaviour (why did you murder your wife?).

6. Why do there have to be initial physical conditions outside of the universe? In a thread some time ago someone pointed out that there is evidence that a physical constant (I think something to do with electrons) has changed over the last 15B years. That shouldn't be possible since it's supposedly a constant, but if it is possible I really see no reason why there can't be initial conditions inside this universe at one point that simply don't occur nowadays and which started off the universe we see. A proto-universe so to speak, we've had that discussion as well, with time not yet an established dimension and suchlike, remember?
In the old thread it was mentioned in reply to this that no closed system can be fully explained without referencing to whatever's outside the system. Well, but so what? If Godel's incompleteness theorem (says Colossus) is true it only means that we cannot fully explain the universe. (Which, unlike what Morris may think and say, is not a problem.) And anyway, what's "outside the universe" supposed to mean. The universe is not some ball which we're sitting inside where we can just walk up to the boundary, poke a hole in it and take a look at what's "outside".

7. You would do well to include a short definition of 'contingent' here, the first one you're likely to find when checking a dictionary is 'contingent on' which means "dependent on something that might happen in the future", which doesn't fit at all.
But that's not meant here, no, you could imagine the universe not existing you say. Really? Do you even have a vague idea of what a "complete lack of anything" is? Not just the space between any two hypothetical subatomic particles where there isn't a hypothetical subatomic particle, but not even any hypothetic subatomic particles between which there can be a space, not even the space for the particles to exist in. I know I don't. For all we know a total lack of any matter or dimensions might even lead to random, spontaneous generation of matter (or dimensions). Matter itself might be "essential", existence might be a necessary feature of matter. We don't know, you postulate that it has to come from "somewhere" because it cannot from nothing, but you have not yet been able to watch this "nothing", so your claim is as far-fetched as any other. And furthermore, to me the claim of a sentient being with all the attributes ascribed to god being essential sounds far more unlikely than some subatomic particle or dimension "popping into existence".

8. And where did this Person come from? We're back to the old question of who created the creator, and that's one you cannot get out of. A creator outside of the universe "must" exist only if you can prove that nothing else can have caused it. And Tom Morris has shown nothing of the sort so far. Even if you can show that the universe has to have been created, there's nothing to indicate that the creator is "essential" and must exist, you end up with an infinite regress.

9. And now we give it a name, hey, let's call it Bob. And we ascribe attributes to it, "power" and "wisdom". Now really, the origins of the universe we largely see today might have required some large-scale border conditions, but "wisdom"?
This step is completely unnecessary and serves no other end than to introduce the term 'God' into the line of reasoning.

10. The conclusion has been shown not to follow, because the premises are flawed on several levels, thank you for your time.

[Juan_Bottom]

And here we go again. Version 1.2 with a commentary already... And you, Jenos, have so far not once responded to my reponse to your little pamphlet, you're running out of credibility.

Yup. And still this is like the hundreth time he has whipped that out.

[heavycola]

go medefe!