Logic dictates that there is a God!

[tzor]

As he said, your premise is the only thing that leads to your conclusion. And it doesn't show that "God made the universe" unless you also attach the old saw "nothing can come from nothing".

Which would be very difficult indeed because as the old saying goes, nature abhors a nothing. (Technically nature abhors a vaccuum, which technically speaking is nothing.)

(*) Francois Rabelas (French monk and satirist 1494-1553)

[jonesthecurl]

Not when there's no such thing as nature.

[Snorri1234]

Nothing can come from nothing. So, given that, SOMETHING has always had to exist! In order for things to be here now, logic dictates SOMETHING has always existed. And that something must have the power to create, be living and be eternal.

The bolded does not follow from the previous statements.

[Snorri1234]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXfmjMlPEic&feature=player_embedded

[john9blue]

At first I thought, "snorri probably linked to a random talentless comedian who hates religion". But I was wrong, the guy is very talented at the piano.

[nietzsche]

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

Ok, I'm gonna join your game. I shouldn't.

BTW, Dialectics is like the black sheep of philosophy, like the trans fat of food.

First: "life". "Life" is a concept, it does not exist, what does exist are living entities. But conceding that we use such concepts, let's try a basic definition. Without the hollyness that comes to mind to most when "life" is thought or uttered, Life would mean the sum up of the living entities, or the feature or characteristic of those entities.

Now we need to focus on living entities to understand a bit more what the concept "Life" means. Now these can take a long time so I'm going to be reductionist, trying not to commit any foul:

Living entities have to work to mantain their homeostasis, to keep on existing, they need to consume carbohydrates to burn them and produce work, to renew themselves (they also need proteins and vitamins and..). All this is basically that Living entities have to work constantly to beat the otherwise prevaling 2nd law of thermodynamics, the tendency of it all to entropy. And they beat it for a period of time only.

So what is thing living entities have that make them so special? Their animation, their "staying alive" against a indifferent but hostile environment, against everything else that appears not to have any order of itself (which happens to be false, i.e. crystals).

Now, how is it possible for this entities to do such things to stay alive? Well, here is the hard part for most to understand: For billions of years molecules danced in liquid substances that allowed them sometimes to (like a puzzle) attach to other molecules and this process went on and on for a loooooooot of time. Not soon, but eventually macromolecules were formed, later some self-replicated macromolecules, some kept on going, evolved, and much later we had RNA, basic cells (a membrane -some grassy stuff- surrounding other stuff), and eventually all kinds of life, evolving and adapting until now.

Don't go crazy, this happened over a long long time. Long long time. If you fail to conceive this, it's because of your lack of imagination rather than because it's false.

So "life can not come from non-life" has been reduced to a concept which does not exist nowhere in the planet ("Life") "cannot come from"... separated molecules? Well as we saw it can happen.

I repeat, Dialectics is bad for you.




P.S. If you go on and try to disprove the evolution theory by taking advantage of my inability to create air-tight arguments or petty mistakes, or even by spelling and grammar errors due to my bad english, then I'll only admit that you are a good debater and not that what I typed is wrong, or that your point is right.

[jay_a2j]

My "lack of imagination"? In order to buy your theory I'd have to possess a superb imagination. One that, under other circumstances, would most likely place me in a mental ward.

[nietzsche]

My "lack of imagination"? In order to buy your theory I'd have to possess a superb imagination. One that, under other circumstances, would most likely place me in a mental ward.

Nope. Go to a library, divide the subject on parts depending on significant milestones and study it one by one. When you've finished with a part of the theory, check it on your notebook and go to the next part. One by one, it's possible for you to understand without getting lost. If you still can't understand, divide each part in little parts.

There are even awesome computer generated examples of how evolution could happen, speed it up so that you can grasp. Good authors on these topics are Dawkins, Dennet, Gould, of course Darwin, but you are free to choose your own books.

Don't worry, It's not that hard once you have grasped the general idea.

[Maugena]

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

I love you jay.
You keep contradicting yourself-it's simply amazing.
I suppose you've never taken a philosophy class.

I'm going to keep a list of what you've said so far.

• "[...] life can not come from non-life."
• "[...] a living God must exist and must have always existed."

Logic takes you back to God.

Logic said you just contradicted yourself.

[jonesthecurl]

It is only worthwhile to walk into the room called "Logic", if you do more than stamp the word "therefore" on your preconceptions after re-wrapping them.

Here are a few examples of futile visits to the room called "logic".

(i) Obviously, the universe couldn't create itself.
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(ii) Obviously, Life could not have created itself
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(iii) Obviously black people are less than human
THEREFORE
slavery is OK

(iv) Obviously women are less intelligent than men
THEREFORE
they shouldn't get the vote

(v) Obviously evolution is nonsense
THEREFORE
all scientists are part of an anti-christian cover-up

(v) Obviously the debate is over
THEREFORE
shut up Jonesy.

[jay_a2j]

The second (v) was simply a masterpiece!

[WidowMakers]

It is only worthwhile to walk into the room called "Logic", if you do more than stamp the word "therefore" on your preconceptions after re-wrapping them.

Here are a few examples of futile visits to the room called "logic".

(i) Obviously, the universe couldn't create itself.
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(ii) Obviously, Life could not have created itself
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(iii) Obviously black people are less than human
THEREFORE
slavery is OK

(iv) Obviously women are less intelligent than men
THEREFORE
they shouldn't get the vote

(v) Obviously evolution is nonsense
THEREFORE
all scientists are part of an anti-christian cover-up

(v) Obviously the debate is over
THEREFORE
shut up Jonesy.

The first two examples are obvious, the others are not.

It is not obvious that black people are inferior. That is an opinion.
However it is obvious that a thing, whatever it is, does not have the ability to create itself since it does not yet exist, therefore it is logical to conclude that something before it created it > creator.

[jonesthecurl]

The second (v) was simply a masterpiece!

[bows]

[jonesthecurl]

It is only worthwhile to walk into the room called "Logic", if you do more than stamp the word "therefore" on your preconceptions after re-wrapping them.

Here are a few examples of futile visits to the room called "logic".

(i) Obviously, the universe couldn't create itself.
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(ii) Obviously, Life could not have created itself
THEREFORE
it had a creator.

(iii) Obviously black people are less than human
THEREFORE
slavery is OK

(iv) Obviously women are less intelligent than men
THEREFORE
they shouldn't get the vote

(v) Obviously evolution is nonsense
THEREFORE
all scientists are part of an anti-christian cover-up

(v) Obviously the debate is over
THEREFORE
shut up Jonesy.

The first two examples are obvious, the others are not.

It is not obvious that black people are inferior. That is an opinion.
However it is obvious that a thing, whatever it is, does not have the ability to create itself since it does not yet exist, therefore it is logical to conclude that something before it created it > creator.

NO: that is the whole point: if you start by saying it is obvious, you get nowhere with your "therefore" - your conclusion is implicit in your assumption.

[WidowMakers]

NO: that is the whole point: if you start by saying it is obvious, you get nowhere with your "therefore" - your conclusion is implicit in your assumption.

But sometimes things are obvious and therefore the assumption is correct.
It is obvious that a thing (whatever it is) cannot make itself.

It is obvious that a train cannot make itself
therefore it must have been created.

This statement is true and the conclusion is true.
You cant say that stating the obvious is always a wrong thing and that the conclusion implicit in the assumption is wrong.
That was my point.

[Haggis_McMutton]

What is considered obvious and what isn't is based on how much people know at some point in time.

The only things that are truly obvious are the things pertaining to systems we fully understand, as in systems we created. Anything else may seem obvious but as we have seen time and time again, the universe is a lot weirder than we imagine and quite likely a lot weirder than we CAN imagine.

If you had never seen a magnet, would it not be obvious that a piece of metal cannot move another without physically touching it in any way?

If you knew nothing about astronomy, would not the geocentric model be obvious?

If you're finding it hard to grasp how those "obviously" wrong concepts could have been considered self evident, think about more recent discoveries Quantum Entanglement, Special Relativity, atoms being more than 99.99% free space, Particle Wave duality.

If so many obvious things turned out wrong how can you know your statement is correct? It sounds right?

[PLAYER57832]

NO: that is the whole point: if you start by saying it is obvious, you get nowhere with your "therefore" - your conclusion is implicit in your assumption.

But sometimes things are obvious and therefore the assumption is correct.

This is basically NEVER true. When something seems "obvious", that is precisely when it needs to be questioned, because else errors get perpetuated over and over and over.

And, regarding assumptions -- there is a saying "assume makes an ass of u [you] and me". There are times when there is no choice but to assume, however it should never be taken as proof. It is a provisional assessment, necessary, but faulty. Assumptions must be replaced by truth when possible.

[daddy1gringo]

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I think we've found a point of contact here. I not only agree with you, I have tried to say this same thing in a few previous posts.

Logic is a valuable tool, used properly and in the right circumstances. But ultimately, in real life, logic is generally the servant of the will, or if I may be crude, its prostitute: telling it what it wants to hear and performing the tricks that it desires.

Where we differ is that you apply that only on one side. If you are honest you have to admit that the will, or the "unconscious" as you refer to it, has motive to seek pretexts NOT to believe as well. If there is no God and the Bible is just the stories and opinions of men, then you can be your own God, and create your rules and standards of living to suit yourself.

Now this is tricky, because I am dealing with the Christian life as it is perceived by those outside of it, or at least many of them: as a lot of "giving up stuff", living in guilt and fear of punishment, and going to boring services; that if anything is fun it must be “a sin”. For the record, that is not what it is really like, and my life as a Christian is one of freedom. Yes, there is sacrifice and discipline, but less than you may think, and what there is, all of it has a purpose and yields benefits. The better I get to know Jesus, the less religious I get.

The point is that Christian life, as often perceived, is something that a lot of people would want to avoid, and therefore their "premises are bound to be biased" as well. Can you honestly tell me that the desire and opportunity to have sex with people to whom you are not married is not just as strong a motivation to "come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after."?

As I have said before, logic is inconclusive on this subject. So I actually disagree with Jay's premise for this thread. My problem is with the converse idea that logic dictates that there is NO God. To paraphrase what you have just said, with which I agree, logic doesn't dictate anything, it is dictated TO. People make their decision based on their predisposition, or at least on something other than logic, then use logic to justify it.

Nevertheless, people constantly make statements to the effect that believing in God is necessarily contrary to logic, and that NOT believing is the logical position. For every post that asserts proof of God, there are 10-100 that assert that believers are all gullible fools who just never questioned what they were taught as babies. "It is obvious that it is all just fairy tales"; "How can you go on believing against all that evidence?" and so on. Your post that I have quoted makes the same assumptions.

As I said in another thread, I believe God calls to us by means, and in a part of our consciousness, that is apart from logic; not contrary to logic, but aside from it. If you have convinced yourself that the idea of God is contrary to logic, then you may be inclined to write off that calling prematurely as unfounded feelings. I think that for many, that’s how it goes. They reject the idea of believing in God outright on the premise that reason and the evidence are against it, and that is not the case.

If you begin to get the idea that there is something out there more than what logic and your 5 senses tell you, or if looking at nature, or history, or within yourself, or in the eyes of your newborn child, you get the sense that there is a person behind all of this, then no, you don't have to throw away your brain to consider it, or to ask and seek to get to know him.

[stuart133]

I really shouldn't, but this is always good fun.
Life CAN come from non-life, it is called Abiogenesis. More importantly, there is no "life" as such. Simply some chemicals with an electric current running through them. The whole concept of "life" is simply because we don't like to think of ourselves as nothing more than some chemicals and a battery, but that is what it boils down to.

Say it like that and suddenly Abiogenesis seems a lot more realistic.

[Snorri1234]

NO: that is the whole point: if you start by saying it is obvious, you get nowhere with your "therefore" - your conclusion is implicit in your assumption.

But sometimes things are obvious and therefore the assumption is correct.
It is obvious that a thing (whatever it is) cannot make itself.

It is obvious that a train cannot make itself
therefore it must have been created.

This statement is true and the conclusion is true.
You cant say that stating the obvious is always a wrong thing and that the conclusion implicit in the assumption is wrong.
That was my point.

If you're using the word "obvious" it's a fair bet that you're not using logic.

[jay_a2j]

Life CAN come from non-life, it is called Abiogenesis.

When I see life come from non-life, I'll consider it. Until then, "life cannot come from non-life" still stands.


How do you even come to believe that something that is not living can produce something that is living? A rock will still be just a rock 364 gazillion years from now.

[Maugena]

When I see life come from non-life, I'll consider it. Until then, "life cannot come from non-life" still stands.


How do you even come to believe that something that is not living can produce something that is living? A rock will still be just a rock 364 gazillion years from now.

Keep contradicting yourself.

What is your opinion?
a. God is a living 'being'.
b. God is not a living 'being'.

[Snowden]

@Maugena

Jay has not yet contradicted himself. In your earlier post you said he did by quoting him saying that life can not come from non-life, and that God has always existed. This is not a contradiction. Since we are looking at this from Jay's point, God is the creator, so to say... he is the beginning and the end, he has always been around. Now that we see this view, we can assume that God is the only being never created and he has always existed, everything else was created by God. Which makes Jay's first statement "life can not come from non-life" un-compromised by the second statement.

I write this strictly taking the view of one observing the debate here. Im just pointing out an objective flaw in your argument, I do not yet want to take a side.

[stuart133]

Life CAN come from non-life, it is called Abiogenesis.

When I see life come from non-life, I'll consider it. Until then, "life cannot come from non-life" still stands.


How do you even come to believe that something that is not living can produce something that is living? A rock will still be just a rock 364 gazillion years from now.

Ahh here we go again .. When I see it ...

Well, here is some news for you, Abiogenesis takes a VERY LONG time to happen. Like longer than the entire history of the human race thousands of times over. Also a rock WONT be a rock in many years time, it's matter will likely be something else entirely, maybe even making up part of a living being, who knows?

Oh also, technically I don't see god, so he can't be real. Now that clearly is just bad logic, would you not agree? Or is god above the normal constraints of science?

[Haggis_McMutton]

Life CAN come from non-life, it is called Abiogenesis.

When I see life come from non-life, I'll consider it. Until then, "life cannot come from non-life" still stands.


How do you even come to believe that something that is not living can produce something that is living? A rock will still be just a rock 364 gazillion years from now.

See the problem with this is you're saying: Event X seems really improbable, therefore event Y, which is even MORE improbable must be true.

I just rolled 6 with my dice 100 times in a row, gee that's really unlikely to happen by chance, therefore there must be a genie in the dice that's trying to communicate with me.

Not really sound logic there.