Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@unknownuser said:
Er, no. It's a method, with 'rules' that were developed and improved upon over time.
well, that sounds more like parts of a system to me, Tom.
@unknownuser said:
You've not met my gf, have you?
i do have a few samples here, Tom 
-
it gets more interesting than before contextual with the topic, in my opinion, it's a simple logic that there could only be one boss in a business. commanding officer in a unit, director in a project, etc.
more than one head figures might give it a lot of mess. since each one of them would probably do things in their own way and desire, each one believe.
i could imagine if one would like the shape of the earth to be a perfect cube and the other one prefer it to be sphere shaped. they'll end up quarreling or even fighting each other. and left the project without even ever start to do it
-
This question about 'Logic' is a red-herring.
Why would atheists differ from anyone else on this matter ?
Logic is a method of thought invented/developed by the ancient Greeks [who were mainly theists].
"Logic" is itself a branch of mathematics.
Mathematics is the only real provable 'truth' that is available to us.A "number" either "is" or it "isn't".
Numbers interact in immutable ways.
There are clear mathematical 'rules' and 'theorems'.All scientific 'laws' can be deconstructed back to mathematics [although it's unlikely to be of much practical use].
Any scientific 'laws/theories' are our best current approximation of the truth.
They are practical tools used to understand the world.
They change and develop over time as our understanding advances.
So Newton's laws of motion were good enough on a day-to-day scale when he worked them out, but they were found to be an approximated subset of Einstein's theories of relativity, which also apply to large-scale phenomena, and then came along Quantum mechanics to explain phenomena on a tiny-scale... now a Grand Unified Theory might one day assemble all of these into a new 'theory of everything'...As I said "Logic" is itself a branch of mathematics, so to ask why logic exists is no different from asking why mathematics exists, which brings us full circle to 'why does anything exist at all ?'.
If we accept that 'things' simply exist, and that there are underlying 'laws' as to how they interact, it does not mean that they were 'made' by anyone.
The 'concrete' things [matter/energy] and the 'laws' governing their interactions 'exist'.
BUT they just 'came into being' and don't need to be 'created'...Indeed, the multi-verse theory says that as a result of the underlying rules of 'quantum-flux' every possible universe exists [they simply pop into existence, but are independent of each other] and their underlying 'laws' need not be the same in any of them!
However, the underlying 'laws' that we have in 'our' universe just happen to allow us to exist, observe it and think about it etc, so they do appear to be honed to suit us - however, in the zillions of other universes with less benign rules there is no stable matter, or if there is no sentient beings to consider them. We have the 'laws' we have because without them we wouldn't exist to think about them otherwise... We are not chosen/special, we are just the lucky ones who 'exist'. -
I find these debates regarding creationism vs. science fascinating. Science usually provides a unified front of logic compared to religion, let's not forget that Christianity is not the only belief, which has different theories of creation, rules to live by, afterlife or even reincarnation. Some argue that one God is all gods, but that does not change the fact that many do not believe that there is an afterlife or a god and they choose to live with good character among their fellow human beings, easily as well as any of faith claiming that the tenets of their religion make society livable.
That said about the differing views on creation; I simply do not think that, if there is a God of any kind, it would be knowable. All it takes is to look at the processes which make our bodies function, like DNA and proteins, things like String Theory or even Quantum Mechanics, and one can see the virtually bottomless complexity that allows us function within the space in which we exist. No matter how deep we dig, there always seems to be another layer. What lies beneath? If a being did create the universe, and us, the intelligence needed to create such a thing so vast and complex is undoubtedly beyond our ken. Many religions adhere to the belief that we are alone in this universe, I find that hard to swallow. What a colossal waste of space and matter this would be. If there are souls to be given, why not give them elsewhere too? This brings me to another thought (from a Western perspective); What sort of god lets entire populations be born into poverty, disease, war, rape and violence for the duration of their often brief existence? What sort of a god takes your child from you, your father, mother, spouse before their time to teach you to something or test your faith? What about those that get born into a deformed or vegetative state for the duration of their existence?
This is no god I need. I don't think that if there is a god that it is a hands-on kind of god, that meddles with universal affairs or that of Man. If there is one, and you are granted a life/soul, you have the option of investing it in the wealth of family, friends, charity and your fellow human kind, or it can be frittered away on drugs, crime, murder and any number of other bad things. I would dare to say that many aren't even given the choice of how to live. Judgement is for the afterlife and cannot be negated with a prayer, IMO. I also feel that the end of humanity will be at our own hands and by our own wasteful, selfish and foolish ways, not at the intervention of an extraterrestrial being manipulating the fabric of space and time in order to bring down some apocalypse in a predetermined sequence. Certainly we won't need any external help to do that.
-
Not that I want to get immersed in this discussion, but consider:
You said:
"Many religions adhere to the belief that we are alone in this universe, I find that hard to swallow. What a colossal waste of space and matter this would be."
Maybe it takes this huge waste of space, energy, matter(all probably the same "thing") to manifest the eventuality of us. -
Even so, it's a very big universe. It's something of a mantra amongst cosmologists and astrophysicists...the opening lines from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy..."Space is big - really big - you just won't believe how vastly, hugely mind-bogglingly big it is."...because it's simply impossible to get across to people (or even yourself) exactly how incredibly big it really is. Our brains can't cope.
A decade ago, scientists were saying that the number of stars was equal to ten times the number of grains of sand in every desert and on every beach on Earth. That was before the Hubble Deep Space investigations...you can probably add yet another zero onto that now. Even after that explanation you still need to remind yourself how many billions of grains of sand there might be in a Fire Bucket...and that you can walk across some deserts for week after week. And they are rather more than one bucket deep.
I could buy the fact that you might need an entire galaxy for just one planet to have all the right conditions for life, but there are a similar number of galaxies out there to the number of stars in our own; and those are just the ones we know about. If some kind of being created all that, then it's intellect and power goes way beyond the simplistic and heavy-handed anthropomorphic version handed down to us from the Bronze Age.
-
@mitcorb said:
Maybe it takes this huge waste of space, energy, matter(all probably the same "thing") to manifest the eventuality of us.
Anything is possible. Understand, I am not against a deity - only religion's attempts at claiming to know the truth of the entire matter and adherence to their truths is mandatory. This IMO is where the matter gets muddled, because something is does not mean it is as described in a flawed, man-made oral history transcribed years or centuries after the supposed events occurred. What is may very well be created, but certainly not for tithes, repentance, circumcision or any of the other odd things we do here in the name of a particular system.
-
@ Escape Artist. You try to create your own god, but you will realize only a lowly idol...
-
TIG, be serious! ‘Logic’ is NOT a real branch of mathematics, and mathematics are NOT the only real provable truth that is available to us...
Laws of Logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and way He expects us to think...
These stem from God’s nature! God is Logical, and „in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3)Laws of Logic are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They are contingent upon the biblical God!See for example the DVD “The ULTIMATE PROOF of Creation – resolving the Origins Debate”, by Dr. Jason Lisle, and you will be elucidated!
-
-
-
Cornel you contradict yourself at every turn...
Logic IS a part of Mathematics.
AND whether Mathematics is a natural consequence of a naturally occurring Universe, OR a consequence of your God's tinkering with things is immaterial to that relationship.
I said that Mathematics is the basis of the only truth available to us - you almost agreed but then pulled back into crash sophistry...
You say that for you Logic is a direct manifestation of God: QED - for you then Mathematics must be a direct manifestation of God - because Logic itself IS a subset [perhaps even the very basis] of Mathematics.
You cannot redefine Logic as something it isn't - if you do that, then you should be honest and rename it... -
TIG, ‘Logic’ is part of Mathematics, but ARTIFICIALLY...
How do you decide, for example ”right” from “wrong”, mathematical...?! -
That's a complete red herring. You really do have utterly confused thought processes, don't you? Right and wrong form no part of logic. There is mathematically or logically correct/incorrect, consistent/inconsistent, yes/no, on/off, 0/1; but that is not remotely the same thing as right and wrong...not the way you mean it, anyway.
Right and wrong are value judgements based on circumstances and culture. An action that might be regarded as right at one point in time may be wrong at another...like burning people whose religious views you happen not to agree with, for example.
-
@unknownuser said:
TIG, ‘Logic’ is part of Mathematics, but ARTIFICIALLY...
How do you decide, for example ”right” from “wrong”, mathematically...?!
I had just typed this but then Alan gave a very similar answer just ahead of me...
I'll post it anyway.
0/1
It's a simple binary logic-switch, where 'right'/'wrong' are predetermined by an ARTIFICIAL rule that sets them up as opposites.
Logic itself doesn't tell you if something is intrinsically 'right' or intrinsically 'wrong'.
Just which 'state' is present when tested - like 'on'/'off', 'up'/'down', 'black'/'white'...
Assigning 'rightness' and 'wrongness' to the two tested states is arbitrary - a simple rule invented by man OR by God - from Logic's viewpoint it doesn't matter where that rule comes from.
Logic itself only tests the 'state'.
The 'names' or 'consequences' of those possible states is unimportant to Logic itself.
It might be very important to us [or even God]... BUT 'Logic' couldn't care less about it !!! -
If you watch the video that cornel referenced, 50 minutes of unadulterated drivel, purely my personal opinion, obviously biased by my ungodly secular world view, you will understand why his arguments are the way they are.
And if he truly goes by the teachings of "Dr. Jason Lisle" then even discussing the issue is a waste of time because he simply knows everyone else is wrong.
-
@unknownuser said:
@ Escape Artist. You try to create your own god, but you will realize only a lowly idol...
My thought is that the religions of the world beat me to that a long time ago.
-
"then even discussing the issue is a waste of time because he simply knows everyone else is wrong"
You nail it Box
By the way I much admire Alan, Tig, and others abnegation trying to argue with Cornel but it's where
we see the wises against the fool.Happy new year to all of you.
-
Guys, you argue that “(assigning 'rightness' and 'wrongness' is arbitrary)” and “(Logic itself only tests the 'state')”
Logic, you can realise only if you exist or not..., nothing else! Bravo, bravo...!I tell you a secret: “Logic” implies the TRUTH. Tu obtain the true, we need divine guidance, we need God’s laws..., and they are: “immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships”, as I have said before...
Anothet secret: To be smart is different than to be wise!
-
@unknownuser said:
TIG, be serious! ‘Logic’ is NOT a real branch of mathematics, and mathematics are NOT the only real provable truth that is available to us...
Laws of Logic are a reflection of the way God thinks, and way He expects us to think...
These stem from God’s nature! God is Logical, and „in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3)Laws of Logic are immaterial, universal, invariant, abstract entities which govern all possible conceptual relationships.
They are contingent upon the biblical God!See for example the DVD “The ULTIMATE PROOF of Creation – resolving the Origins Debate”, by Dr. Jason Lisle, and you will be elucidated!
Cornel,
I think its you that needs to be serious. As regards 'God's nature', if such exists, what arrogance it would for his 'creations' to 'believe' they could ever have an understanding of same.
I watched Dr. Jason Lisle in action. I honestly started viewing with an open mind but as he continued I started to break into laughter as I could not take this man 'seriously'! I fell on my sofa laughing at his age of Earth calculations
It looks to me that all your beliefs are faith based and if you are happy to live with these, more luck to you. The object of this thread was / is to see if there are other avenues we could explore. Quoting the bible or any other literature written for (at the time) people that did not even have a basic grasp of rudimentary science is just not being 'serious'.
Mike
Advertisement