Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@ Brodie
I was, of course, being entirely fatuous about heaven and hell. I just thought things needed lightening up a little. I'm quite sure that if heaven exists it is far more profound than my glib description. I'm equally sure that it would be far more profound than even the most fervent christian imagines it to be.
To be honest, I'd quite like the answers to all the questions we are currently asking; to have it all revealed and be able to say "Ah! so that's how the universe really works." or "Ah! so that's the purpose for which we were created."
I'd like it...but I'm reserving judgement on whether or not it's going to happen.
In terms of living our lives in the here and now, I don't think we can do any better than heed the advice of Marcus Aurelius.“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
Regarding Chinese logical history, I believe it developed quite separately from that in the west...although it reached similar conclusions There is a heavy emphasis on words and names; and you don't need me to tell you that Mandarin doesn't have much in common with western languages in terms of vocabulary and structure. There's a simple introduction to it here.
-
@alan fraser said:
@ Brodie
I was, of course, being entirely fatuous about heaven and hell. I just thought things needed lightening up a little. I'm quite sure that if heaven exists it is far more profound than my glib description. I'm equally sure that it would be far more profound than even the most fervent christian imagines it to be.
To be honest, I'd quite like the answers to all the questions we are currently asking; to have it all revealed and be able to say "Ah! so that's how the universe really works." or "Ah! so that's the purpose for which we were created."
I'd like it...but I'm reserving judgement on whether or not it's going to happen.
In terms of living our lives in the here and now, I don't think we can do any better than heed the advice of Marcus Aurelius.“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
Regarding Chinese logical history, I believe it developed quite separately from that in the west...although it reached similar conclusions There is a heavy emphasis on words and names; and you don't need me to tell you that Mandarin doesn't have much in common with western languages in terms of vocabulary and structure. There's a simple introduction to it here.
Well put Alan.
Of course, Christians would argue with Aurelius' first point on the grounds that none of us is adequately virtuous...but that's another matter.
-Brodie
-
Definitely well put Alan. However now I can't get "It's A Small World" out of my head!
-
@solo said:
Yet he draws a conclusion that god exists because atheists have no answer, but no where has he linked absolute logic to a creator but rather makes the assumption that if it cannot be disproved it has to be correct.
Again, I don't think he believes he's drawing that conclusion because atheists haveno answer but because they can have no answer - that is because he's disproven that atheism can possibly account for the existence of logic. I'll admit that's a hard case to make though.
The way I see his argument is somewhat like arguing that either 2+2=4 or 2+2!=4 (where != is 'does not equal'). If we can show that the second statement is false, the first must be true. But disproving something can certainly be a 'tough row to hoe' as grandma says.
-Brodie
-
Happy New Year to all of you (both a and theists
Interesting discussion. I think it makes horizons wider to all participants (who wants them to be
So it is not useless at all.
I'll bring my thoughts about last pages I wasn't here.First of all I have to say once again that most arguments from atheist here are against (someone said) "TV version" of religion (and popes version
. I agree with that arguments. The real thing is more like this:@michaliszissiou said:
Some Alberto Giacometti's quotes.
Life is only an abyss.
I no longer understand anything about life, about death, about anything.
Art is only a way of seeing. Whatever I may look at, everything is beyond me, everything surprises me. I don’t exactly know what I am seeing. It’s too complex..."Lateral thinking is solving problems through an indirect and creative approach, using reasoning that is not immediately obvious and involving ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic." For lateral thinking one need open ends, not closed. You don't think in a linear way (the way of Logic), but non-linear. This ability too keep ends opened is essential for every invention. This is also essential for creating image of God. One (scientist of religious) needs faith for this. And, as Brodie wrote The Bible is open book for us to create.
@michaliszissiou said:
Some Alberto Giacometti's quotes.
Basically, I no longer work for anything but the sensation I have while working.@speaker said:
...I think they are just wishful thinkers who just haven't found spiritual fulfilment outside religion yet. I also was struggling for a long time to reach this state. One of the last obstacle in my way was the question of morality. Once I found the answer, I felt as everything was in it's place and my life has found it's meaning, I finally felt... happy
@unknownuser said:
What is the answer you found regarding morality? And yes I am genuinely interested.
Me too
@alan fraser said:
PS My point about the Chinese and Logic is that they developed it from an entirely humanistic perspective. The key word there is developed. They didn't discover it, they developed it; and that development as well as parallel developments in Greece and India are well charted. Logic has a recorded history...just like mathematics.
@unknownuser said:
Can you point me to a source on what it was the Chinese logicians developed? The fact that people of different cultures were beginning to understand these things at the same time would only seem to indicate all the more that they weren't independently inventing them...
...or that they were in fact discoveries of the same thing which is inside our nature and began with logos (seems logical to me).
-
Alan,
While I am not saying who invented it, I think logic as a human pastime, construct, whatever must long predate the systems you cite, just as poetry, mathematics, etc. existed before written systems were added. The Chinese and Greeks are post-civilization. So... no logic in the human experience prior to civilization? I doubt it.
(Of course without writing we can't prove it so... God must exist! The answer for everything we are not sure of.)
Peter
-
@srx said:
...or that they were in fact discoveries of the same thing which is inside our nature and began with logos (seems logical to me).
Well of course they are...after a fashion. Logic is a way to organise thought processes...of creating order out of chaos. The early Chinese philosophers thought that without this kind of order, civilization was not possible at all. It was all in the name; and the way you defined something.
But there are many different types of logic...Predicate, Propositional, Foundation etc. Some deal in absolutes...such as that which governs mathematical principles, others are contingent on language. Logic simply mirrors the way our brain organises information, but that is not to say that it was planted there by any divinity. That's as much a leap of faith as any other aspect of Intelligent Design.Edit: Peter, I'm sure you're correct. It's just that these civilisations formalised the process. The Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids thousands of years before without exercising logic as to their construction. You could also argue that the higher animals that exhibit forethought planning and strategy (in hunting for instance) are also exercising logical thought.
-
@solo said:
This whole logic debate is totally new to me, I have never heard it debated or read any discussions in regards to it proving or disproving a creator.
This has got me thinking and not working today and I find it fascinating to say the least.
What exactly is logic?
Do animals have logic?
Are babies born with logic?
Is logic a result of human consciousness?
Indeed. It's much more confusing than I'd originally thought or intended. In retrospect I realize I was speaking only of a small subset of the canon of logical thought (that being those laws of logic attributed to Aristotle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_thought ). The argument may be more broad than just those particular laws but I find I'm overwhelmed just by taking a cursory glance through a handful of wikipedia articles.
I think because of these different aspects of logic, depending on which sort you've got in mind you'll come to different conclusions.
For example, the sort of logic I was referring to couldn't really be broken by an animal (laws of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded-middle). Likewise babies are born logical, in this sense, whether they understand it or not (it would be like asking if babies are born with the law of gravity). But I don't think that's the same sort of logic that most of us are talking about. When we say our girlfriend is illogical it means something more like 'they do and say things which contradict other things they've said or done.'
Likewise, I think this is where our discussion got off track and I failed to articulate and refine my position well. I think we'd all agree that the law of gravity was discovered rather than developed (although I'm having my doubts now if we'd even agree on this), but I was unable to reign in the specific aspect of logic I was referring to when posing a similar question about logic. It's all rather confusing at this point.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
It's all rather confusing at this point.
Yeah.
I'll see if I can come up with an answer to your question about the laws of logic being dependent on man in the morning. My thinking cap is starting to make my scalp itch.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
It's all rather confusing at this point.
Yeah.
I'll see if I can come up with an answer to your question about the laws of logic being dependent on man in the morning. My thinking cap is starting to make my scalp itch.
haha, that certainly paints a mental picture
-Brodie
-
Comedy break:
-
Good stuff
Who was the balding guy at the end, he looks familiar. Was he Tim's (Simon Pegg's) boss in Spaced?-Brodie
-
That's Bill Bailey. I've not seen 'Spaced', though. I'll check it out.
If you've not seen 'Black Books', I totally recommend it. I laughed tears watching it.
Er, [/ot].
-
Spaced is a must watch in my book. A sort of cult show here in the states, I'm not sure how popular it ever was over seas. It was my intro to Simon Pegg and probably my favorite thing he's in (although Shawn of the Dead is pretty great as well and also has Nick Frost as most of Pegg's movies seem to). I'm not a big british comedy fan, either but this one has so many great quotes and it's only like 3 seasons I think. I believe it's on Netflix instant watch last I checked.
I've never heard of Black Books. I'll check it out.
Bailey, is indeed Pegg's boss, Bilbo Bagshot (hahaha).
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
I'm not sure how popular it ever was over seas.
No idea either, I hadn't even heard of it until now.
I've already found a retailer that sells the dvd's. Thanks for the tip.
-
Here you go, make sure you have an ad blocker tho.
watchseries.eu - watchseries Resources and Information.
watchseries.eu is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, watchseries.eu has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!
(watchseries.eu)
-
Let me know what you think of it.
My favorite characters are probably Brian and, although he's only in a couple episodes Tyres the bicycle messenger is great.-Brodie
-
@ Alan F. „Carbon-14” is not a method valid for any period, because the Earth has ‘suffered’ essential changes that have affected inclusive ‘your carbon’...!
@ ‘Solo’ Christianity is NOT “all about fear”. Voila, for example, apostle Paul words:
“I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:38-39)@ Jeff H. You wrote: "So am I going to hell or not?"
The Hell was “created for Satan and his angels”, not for humans being, but people who have served Satan, will follow him there. The escape is for those who repent and trust in Jesus Christ, the Redeemer / the Savior!@ ALL: Regarding the Laws of Logic, carefully study this passage (John 1:1-5):
“[In the beginning () was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the LIGHT OF MEN. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. ]”
The Word of God has two types: ‘written Word’ (the Bible), plus ‘incarnate Word’ (Lord Jesus Christ), and both ‘types’ are TRUE (see John 17:17)
I think you notice whwre is lurking LOGICAL!!!
() “The beginning” is not the start point of Eternity, but ‘Alpha’ point (start point of ‘Time’ , that will finish at ‘Omega’ point…) -
C-14 radiodating is perfectly valid; it's simply that fraudulent Creationists deliberately misuse it. I could go into precisely how they misuse it (like trying to date living organisms or coal) in exquisite detail, but as you'd totally ignore everything I'd written I won't bother.
-
@ 'Alan F’. Do not exagerate! I did not 'TOTALLY" dismiss what you have argued. Read carefully each of my sentence, until now…!
Re. Method C-14, for example, this is partially valid, only for the last configuration of the Earth, because it had substantial changes in both the internal configuration and in the atmosphere (as protective ‘envelope’) All rradiations were also changed, at least a few times..., but Evolutionists do not take account of such 'aspects'...
Advertisement