Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
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
-
Like you, Mike, I've watched some of Lisle's vids. I didn't laugh, though. That man's zeal for pointing out how everyone who doesn't take the Bible literally is unable of rational thought, makes me want to vomit in disgust. He doesn't say the word 'Untermensch', but he's thinking it. I positively loath the foul exclusivist obscurantism people like Lisle peddle.
-
Something that dawned on me when I was young was that most religions, particularly the Christian sects are just 'here after' Insurance Companies!
You join up, mostly involuntary as a baby via your parents and godparents and away you go paying your life subscription in the hope that the bonus will be delivered when you die.
In the past European Kings, Queens and Political Leaders throughout the ages have always been careful to be seen to be subscribing members to suit their own ends mostly.
Now I want to suggest a video!
Richard Dawkins on militant atheism
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html
'Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. A fiery, funny, powerful talk.' -
OK guys, voila my conclusion: God is Truth, and He is Logic...
Glory to Him! -
Thanks for the link, Mike. I do not consider myself a militant atheist, but I do feel we should vigorously defend the separation of church and state.
Edit:
“We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins
-
Richard Dawkins says what he wants, suites of freak..., because You do not know the Word of God!
Do not be naive, but study the Bible, and true science! Be logical! -
I hope some of you are doing design work in the midst of this discussion. And remember god and the devil are in the details.
-
On a sunday? Oh, you blasphemer you!
@unknownuser said:
Richard Dawkins says what he wants, suites of freak..., because You do not know the Word of God!
Do not be naive, but study the Bible, and true science! Be logical!'True science', 'logical' ... Your knack for acutely flipping the meaning of words upside down is unrivalled. And to my mind it belies the apparent strength of your convictions.
-
@unknownuser said:
'True science', 'logical' ... Your knack for acutely flipping the meaning of words upside down is unrivalled. And to my mind it belies the apparent strength of your convictions.
-
Would that be Intelligent Design work?
Yeah, I found that pretty rich too, Tom...coming as it did from what has to be the most illogical, anti-scientific, naive and just plain deluded person I have ever come across.
-
@alan fraser said:
Yeah, I found that pretty rich too, Tom...coming as it did from what has to be the most illogical, anti-scientific, naive and just plain deluded person I have ever come across.
He's something else, yes. However I try, I cannot work out wether he's serious or simply putting us on.
-
I've just spent some time listening to further talks on TED.
The first one I watched was,
Rick Warren on a life of purpose
http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_warren_on_a_life_of_purpose.html
Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life, reflects on his own crisis of purpose in the wake of his book's wild success. He explains his belief that God's intention is for each of us to use our talents and influence to do good.I just could not warm to this guy. I also found it strange that he sat while presenting. Maybe he was not able to stand! If so that's fine but outside of that there was something unbelievable about the guy. On the other hand it appears he has sold 30 million copies of his book! So there must be many that do find him believable.
The next talker was,
Dan Dennett's response to Rick Warren
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_s_response_to_rick_warren.htmlDan Dennett talked about something that I've had in mind for many years. That is that religious instruction in schools should cover the facts of all religions. I was educated by the Cristian Brothers and the Catholic faith was rammed down our necks with no mention of other faiths. I would have liked to have been taught about the other major faiths in the World as I feel such an education would have readied me for life far better. BTW, Dan fairly IMO takes Rick Warren's book apart and shows it for what it is .... non fact based.
After watching Dan Dennett I noticed that Billy Graham had a TED talk.
Billy Graham on technology and faith
http://www.ted.com/talks/billy_graham_on_technology_faith_and_suffering.htmlWhile I was aware of Billy Graham, I had him pegged as a 'Preacher', however I clicked the talk and listened. I was glad I did! Billy Graham has a very solid faith, he has believes that I don't agree with BUT I enjoyed his talk and found him to be a man that is capable of getting his believes across in a way that I do not find oppressive.
One thing that I did notice was that Dalkins, Dennett and Graham all have a good sense of humour whereas Warren seemed to have little.
I suppose one of the reasons this thread is lasting is because the participants are all searching for answers. The answers probably will never be found but searching in itself is a good thing.
Like the story Billy Graham told about his chat with Mrs Gorbachev while seated next to her at a dinner, I also am in the same boat as Mrs Gorbachev, not believing the various Judeo-Christian dogma but wondering that there must be a higher form in control.
Advertisement