Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ben Masada

Things God Did Not Create

1,940 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Mr Walker

Ps there is a big difference between "create", which implies deliberate and conscious intent; and "cause to come into effect" which is a naturla law of consequence. Something might well have "caused the universe to come into existence" but it might be an act of nature or energy without any sentient intent at all. Water flows down hill until man makes it flow up hill. Water doesn't flow down hill by design, but by natural laws. It only flows up hill, (with a few exceptions) by design.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

I would have to slightly disagree with your first statement. Evil does exist as a concept, the antithesis of good. Evil exists as a descriptor of the quality of certain actions taken. Evil does not exist as a free-floating entity. I won't make the next statement past that, as I know that you and I would disagree about it.

Yes, as a concept just like darkness which by definition is a condition of lack of light. Bring light into a dark room and darkness will be proved a concept. The same with evil which means the absence of good. According to Ecclesiastes 7:29 man was created good as an embellishment to a new-born baby. Only later when of age he went after many ill-enterprises by ill-using his Freewill to do evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

The problem here isn't the truth, it's your unsubstantiated claims.

I see you didn't bother to address what Liquid Gardens wrote. What good is logic and common sense when your comprehension skills are so pitiful?

Yes, "unsubstantiated claims" which you cannot refute. It means that the problem is with you and not with me. And the same applies to Liquid Gardens' statement. Usually the comprehension skills of others are always poor when they don't speak according to his or her preconceived notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Isaiah 45:6-9 tells that god did create evil king james version ...also the word sin taken back to the prime root of the word..translates as missing the mark ie ..not understanding what is going on inside yourself but allowing others to tell you how to think and feel.

What defines the Truth is not what one feels inside him or herself as there is a pattern to define Truth from "truths," And according to Isaiah 45:6-9, we cannot take literally what implies a contradiction. I take the text as by forming light, darkness is created and that evil is created with the absence of peace. And all this comes qua explanation to verse 6 that God is absolutely One and there is none else. In other words, that there is no other god to be claimed as responsible for the opposite.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Matter IS energy, just a condensed form of energy. E=mc^2 shows that matter and energy are at the most basic level, one and the same.

I agree about time.

I disagree with your premise though. If God created man, knowing man would sin, he thus created sin. That is like saying that if you hand a loaded gun to a 2 year old child and he shoots someone, that it is not your responsibility, but the responsibility of the 2 year old. That is false, it IS your responsibility just as the creation of sin IS on God's 'hands' (if there is a creator God). He (her?) is the one who handed the loaded gun (free will?) to mankind full well knowing what the consequences of doing so would be.

The Einstein's formula E=mc'2 only demonstrates the atomic structure of matter in the micro nature of the term. I am talking on the macro level of visible matter. Think of an X-Ray tube whose cathode once activated produces photons when once shot at the anode results in energy capable to produce a picture in a film from matter that stands in between. If you cannot understand what I mean think that the purpose is to demonstrate that energy is an accident of matter. Without matter energy would not be able to exist.

Edited by Ben Masada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

You obviously know nothing about what you are talking about. We do not KNOW how the singularity that led to the big bang came to be, we just do not know. It could be that there are multiple universes that exist in some higher dimensional frame of reference where if we were able to observe that reference frame- the 'cause' for our universe might be plainly clear. However, our frame of reference is limited to our universe, so we will probably never know if a higher dimensional environment even exists. In OUR universe we can observe that things have cause-effect relationships, so therefore it is logical to assume that everything in our universe is subject to causality. However when thinking about outside the universe we do not know if the same physics is applied. It may be a totally different environment, it may be that effects precede causes, it may be that things work in a way we cannot even begin to imagine. The point is that we do not know, and since we do not know, your logic is invalid. The 'primal cause' may not be necessary, God may or may not exist. Those are the facts, whatever you believe, understand it is belief, and that the facts as we know them today really do not support or invalidate your belief, nor might they ever.

The problem is not with me but with you for not being able to understand what I am talking about, or... by the same token you refuse to understand my use of Logic to demonstrate what I am talking about. I understand that you do not know how the "singularity" led to the BB. Did this so-called "singularity" cause itself to exist? Of course, you don't know. Sorry, I had already forgotten that the only thing you know is that it was not always there but was not caused. In other words, a paradox. Would not that call for the use of the concept of probability? Probably not as anything akin to the existence of the Primal Cause must be rejected at its onset.

Don't you realize how laughable is to say that if you do not know about something the use of Logic by any one else is invalid? If the Primal Cause may not be necessary, how was the universe caused to exist? You don't know; it began but perhaps alone, you could say. So it caused itself to exist? You don't know. You know only one thing: That it was not the Primal Cause which you even deny a vote of probability. No wonder some theists claim that Atheism is a fundamentalist form of religion. It depends which facts today do not support my views. Logic does, although I am afraid you guys will end up hating Logic as much as the probability for the Primal Cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

Yes, "unsubstantiated claims" which you cannot refute.

And you can't support.
Usually the comprehension skills of others are always poor when they don't speak according to his or her preconceived notions.

You mean words you put in their mouths.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

The problem is not with me but with you for not being able to understand what I am talking about

I'm seeing a pattern here.

When you fail to understand what someone says, its not your problem its their problem. When you put forth unsubstantiated BS, its not your problem its everyone else's problem

Just in the last few replies this cop out is getting old.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada
Great, now you just need to demonstrate why your understanding of logic applies outside of this universe, since you are presuming there is something outside of this universe; good luck with that.

Logic is to be applied inside the universe and not outside. God is not subject to Logic. If you presume that nothing outside the universe caused its beginning, how could the universe itself have done that? You don't know. Now make use of that inability to know and come down from your horse for an esoteric discussion of the Truth.

The reason I don't know is that I don't even know what 'caused itself to exist' can really mean, if it were true it would be incomprehensible to me. It's complicated by the fact also that you are already assuming one thing that didn't need a cause, God, which I also can't really comprehend that fully.

I explained to you with Logic just above that nothing can cause itself to exist. It must have been something else till we come to the Primal Cause. And usually what causes something to exist must be outside of the thing to be caused to exist. The Primal Cause in the case of the universe.

No, not 'the universe' as you are defining it, which is 'everything that exists except God'; cosmology deals with this universe only currently.

Is there any other way to define the universe? I don't think so. God is the only Entity that exists outside the universe, hence He caused the universe to exist.

But let's go with your assumption, yes, this universe did have a beginning; that does not 'render the Primal Cause obvious', you are equivocating here.

Hey! Hold your horses! The assumption is not mine but of the majority of scientists and cosmologists; let alone the theory of the BB which Carl Sagan declared to have caused the beginning of the universe. ("Cosmos") To say that does not render the Primal Cause obvious, you must surely know who did it. Go right ahead, I am ready to hear who or what caused the universe to begin.

If the universe did have a beginning than it had a cause, that's it; not a 'Primal Cause' that you are trying to sneak in as a synonym for your god. Or demonstrate why God must have been that cause and why not some other thing that we similarly don't have any evidence for.

For heaven's sake man! If that is not the Primal Cause why don't you tell me who was It? If you don't know, that's what I mean by the only thing you know is to deny the obvious.

Let's try it this way. We agree that this universe exists, that's a given.

Finally! Some thing has been achieved.

You also want to presume that a god exists, and most importantly, want to presume that those are the only two things that exist.

At least till you prove otherwise.

There is a lot of theoretical discussion about a multiverse existing among physicists/cosmologists that I find hard to believe you are not aware of.

No, I am aware of that illogical nonsense, unless you mean universes in a chain of events after the previous one. Parallel universes only philosophically according to Thomas Mann. The personal universe of any one who meets the universe of another. Well, that's not of the issue under discussion.

So, as long as you are going to go and presume that your god exists and is the cause of this universe, you have no reason to non-hypocritically not allow for the presumption that a multiverse exists or that something that is not an entity and not intelligent and not personal created the universe instead.

You don't know. So don't make things worse to further impair your understanding of Logic.

If you want to presume your god has existed forever, then you'll need to explain why presuming that something else that is not a god but that can cause universes to be created hasn't instead existed forever. Without special pleading.

Nothing akin to matter can exist forever. Since the universe is composed of matter only something that has preceded matter could have caused matter to exist. How can that be so hard to understand? The Primal Cause Who is not matter acts from outside the universe to cause it to begin and to expand. Einstein himself said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of Creation which was at the time a reference to his research on the expansion of the universe. Jesus also declared that God has never stopped working.

As far as your psychoanalysis concerning the pride of atheists, Dr Freud, keep your day job.

Oh! Although I hate to break the chain of a thread while so much remains to be discussed, I'll be more than happy to discuss Freud with you. Why don't you start a new thread on him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

I agree that god did not create sin, but are you saying time space and energy existed before god created matter, or thatt hey are acidental by products of is deliberate creation of matter?

No sir, that's not at all what I am saying. The Lord had to create matter for space, time and energy to follow up as an accident of matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Atheists and theists use the same logic, but because they have different, belief based starting points, the same logic wil inevitably take them to differnt conclusions. That is the nature of logic, and one of its limitations..

No sir, Logic is not subject to the whims of man's limited rationalization. Logic is akin to the Truth. Logic cannot be used against the Truth or vice-versa. Either the atheistic concept is true and ours a lie or we are the ones with the Truth and they are lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

And you can't support.

You mean words you put in their mouths.

No, words you are unable to use to prove your assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

I'm seeing a pattern here.

When you fail to understand what someone says, its not your problem its their problem. When you put forth unsubstantiated BS, its not your problem its everyone else's problem

Just in the last few replies this cop out is getting old.

What did you expect? Of course I am aware this argument is getting old! You don't have a logical answer to my logical question. Do you think I should agree with your balderdash in order to stop this discussion from getting too old? Wish thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Logic is to be applied inside the universe and not outside. God is not subject to Logic. If you presume that nothing outside the universe caused its beginning, how could the universe itself have done that? You don't know. Now make use of that inability to know and come down from your horse for an esoteric discussion of the Truth.

Hahahaha! Yes, it is indeed I that need to 'come down from' my horse, says the guy who blames everyone else for his poor ability to communicate and is condescending about it. I don't presume that 'nothing outside the universe caused its beginning'; the problem is that you are presuming that nothing outside of this universe except God could have caused it. An argument you present with an odd combination of cockiness and lack of evidence.

I explained to you with Logic just above that nothing can cause itself to exist. It must have been something else till we come to the Primal Cause. And usually what causes something to exist must be outside of the thing to be caused to exist. The Primal Cause in the case of the universe.

Let's say you're right. Our 'Primal Cause' could be God, Allah, multiple gods, aliens, an unknown impersonal natural force, something entirely unknown altogether. I'll italicize it and see if it sinks in this time: We have no information on what is required to create a universe or how that is done. Thus you are not presenting any way to differentiate between these imagined possibilities, of which God is just one. You're not explaining your refutation of this with 'Logic', you're trying to just assert it.

God is the only Entity that exists outside the universe, hence He caused the universe to exist.

Evidence please. Are you familiar with the term, 'begging the question'? It relates to 'Logic' that you go on and on about and clearly have trouble actually using properly. No, you're wrong, the only thing that exists outside the universe are gremlins, 'hence' gremlins caused the universe to exist. Convinced yet? No, I'm not going to provide evidence that gremlins did, until you provide some evidence why 'God' is a better answer to the question than gremlins.

Hey! Hold your horses! The assumption is not mine but of the majority of scientists and cosmologists; let alone the theory of the BB which Carl Sagan declared to have caused the beginning of the universe. ("Cosmos") To say that does not render the Primal Cause obvious, you must surely know who did it. Go right ahead, I am ready to hear who or what caused the universe to begin.

The 'Primal Cause' or 'God'? Pick a term and stick with it. I don't know why this needs to be said, but am increasingly understanding why as I read more and more of your thinking here, but it is not necessary to pretend that I know what the answer to a question is in order to refute or argue against what you might think the answer to that question is, it is only necessary to show that your answer is unsupported. I don't have to understand that microorganisms and physical processes cause diseases in order to refute the claim that demons cause diseases; I can merely point out that there is no evidence of demons, which is exactly the problem your hand-waving argument about God suffers from.

For heaven's sake man! If that is not the Primal Cause why don't you tell me who was It? If you don't know, that's what I mean by the only thing you know is to deny the obvious.

Please. It's obvious that God caused the universe to exist? If it's so obvious you would think that you would be able to provide some evidence or a non-hypocritical argument demonstrating it? Your argument so far seems to be, "I think God created the universe. If you can't tell me what actually created the universe and support it with the type of argumentation and evidence (that you conveniently can't provide for your god) that I demand, then "Logic" dictates that I'm correct". That ain't logic or "Logic" pops. I see you're also back to using the word 'probability' again incorrectly to other posters; I thought you had clarified that you really mean 'possibility', they are not the same and I think you know it.

No, I am aware of that illogical nonsense, unless you mean universes in a chain of events after the previous one. Parallel universes only philosophically according to Thomas Mann. The personal universe of any one who meets the universe of another. Well, that's not of the issue under discussion.

It is the issue under discussion, let me hand-hold you through it. You say just above that God is the only thing that exists outside the universe. Cosmologists, whom you are more than happy to hypocritically cite as support when they agree with you, have proposed a multiverse as a possible answer to I believe the fine tuning issue. Thus, your 'God is the only thing that exists outside the universe' assertion is highly questionable, in addition to having no evidence to support it. Labeling it 'illogical nonsense' doesn't refute this.

You don't know. So don't make things worse to further impair your understanding of Logic.

You don't seem to understand that word you just keep throwing out. You don't know that God exists either, so it is entirely logical to point out that the multiverse and God and 'something else unknown that can create universes' also work just fine in your rather tortured 'Logic' structure.

Nothing akin to matter can exist forever. Since the universe is composed of matter only something that has preceded matter could have caused matter to exist. How can that be so hard to understand? The Primal Cause Who is not matter acts from outside the universe to cause it to begin and to expand.

Let's suppose you are correct. Now, provide a complete list of things who are not matter that can cause universes to exist, and most importantly, the evidence supporting their existence. If you are just going to presume your God fits this bill, then you need to provide some evidence that it is specifically him, otherwise you need to allow in all the other things that have just as much (or little, or no) evidence to support them, or explain why all those other possibilities could not have caused the universe to be created. Do you know what 'special pleading' means, Captain Logic?

Oh! Although I hate to break the chain of a thread while so much remains to be discussed, I'll be more than happy to discuss Freud with you. Why don't you start a new thread on him?

Better yet, why don't you cease with your ignorant statements concerning the psyche of 'atheists' that you likewise can't support.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No sir, Logic is not subject to the whims of man's limited rationalization. Logic is akin to the Truth. Logic cannot be used against the Truth or vice-versa. Either the atheistic concept is true and ours a lie or we are the ones with the Truth and they are lying.

Unfortunately like leonardo you misunderstand the nature of logic and its uses.

Logic will often come to false conclusions where it is based on false premises. In religious amters all premises are based on beliefs as yours clearly are thus all conclusions are non verifiable althoughthey may be logical

leonardos argument

No, the premise(s) must be true for the logic to hold.

You are correct that logic can supply wrong conclusions, and this is usually through insufficient or faulty information/knowledge. But the premise(s) must be held to be true. If the premise(s) can be falsified, the logic is faulty.

That is impossible because then one can only use logic when one knows something to be true and not to determine the potential truth of something. I think you are refering to the validity of a total logical argument which requires a correct premise to arrive at correctconclusion, rather than the inherent logic of a process of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[1] In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure. More complex arguments can use a series of rules to connect several premises to one conclusion, or to derive a number of conclusions from the original premises which then act as premises for additional conclusions. An example of this is the use of the rules of inference found within symbolic logic.

In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule, or transformation rule is the act of drawing a conclusion based on the form of premises interpreted as a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form of "If p then q" and another in the form of "p" and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion.

Thus, asIi stated, one can only arrive at a true conclusion using true premises, but one can use logic based on untrue premises, in just the same manner. However one will arrive at untrue conclusions.

Because humans rarely know the truth about many things, their conclusions are also often untrue, even thougth entirely based on logic.

Any use of logic pertaining to god will probably produce untrue conclusions becausee its premises will be false, due to human ignorance about the nature/existence of god..

BUT, in philosophical terms, one can present two hypothetical premises and reach a number of logical conclusions from those premises.

Thus

If god is knowable ie recognizable/perceivable.

If the definition of a god does not exclude such a being being knowable.

Then a god can be known

If god is not physicalin nature or form, then god cannot be physically known.

If your definition of god excludes the physical, then any physical entity you can recognise or perceive is NOT god for you, no matter how godly it appears.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Hahahaha! Yes, it is indeed I that need to 'come down from' my horse, says the guy who blames everyone else for his poor ability to communicate and is condescending about it. I don't presume that 'nothing outside the universe caused its beginning'; the problem is that you are presuming that nothing outside of this universe except God could have caused it. An argument you present with an odd combination of cockiness and lack of evidence.

If nothing outside the universe caused its beginning what or who did it? The watchman is not inside the watch to build the the watch; he is outside. Does it make any better for you to understand?

Let's say you're right. Our 'Primal Cause' could be God, Allah, multiple gods, aliens, an unknown impersonal natural force, something entirely unknown altogether. I'll italicize it and see if it sinks in this time: We have no information on what is required to create a universe or how that is done. Thus you are not presenting any way to differentiate between these imagined possibilities, of which God is just one. You're not explaining your refutation of this with 'Logic', you're trying to just assert it.

You have all the right in the world to choose the name you please for the Primal Cause as long as it has preceded all that has been caused to exist.

Evidence please. Are you familiar with the term, 'begging the question'? It relates to 'Logic' that you go on and on about and clearly have trouble actually using properly. No, you're wrong, the only thing that exists outside the universe are gremlins, 'hence' gremlins caused the universe to exist. Convinced yet? No, I'm not going to provide evidence that gremlins did, until you provide some evidence why 'God' is a better answer to the question than gremlins.

Whatever you mean by "gremlins" it must be matter and therefore part of the universe that did not cause itself to exist.

The 'Primal Cause' or 'God'? Pick a term and stick with it. I don't know why this needs to be said, but am increasingly understanding why as I read more and more of your thinking here, but it is not necessary to pretend that I know what the answer to a question is in order to refute or argue against what you might think the answer to that question is, it is only necessary to show that your answer is unsupported. I don't have to understand that microorganisms and physical processes cause diseases in order to refute the claim that demons cause diseases; I can merely point out that there is no evidence of demons, which is exactly the problem your hand-waving argument about God suffers from.

If my answers are unsupported why don't you provide me one that can be supported? I agree with you that indeed there is no evidence of demons. Does it help you?

Please. It's obvious that God caused the universe to exist? If it's so obvious you would think that you would be able to provide some evidence or a non-hypocritical argument demonstrating it? Your argument so far seems to be, "I think God created the universe. If you can't tell me what actually created the universe and support it with the type of argumentation and evidence (that you conveniently can't provide for your god) that I demand, then "Logic" dictates that I'm correct". That ain't logic or "Logic" pops. I see you're also back to using the word 'probability' again incorrectly to other posters; I thought you had clarified that you really mean 'possibility', they are not the same and I think you know it.

Pick up a dictionary and look up the word "Probability"; the definition is akin to possibility. That's how I use that word and not according to the scientific term it also can be defined otherwise. The point is that I too am right with the definition I am using.

It is the issue under discussion, let me hand-hold you through it. You say just above that God is the only thing that exists outside the universe. Cosmologists, whom you are more than happy to hypocritically cite as support when they agree with you, have proposed a multiverse as a possible answer to I believe the fine tuning issue. Thus, your 'God is the only thing that exists outside the universe' assertion is highly questionable, in addition to having no evidence to support it. Labeling it 'illogical nonsense' doesn't refute this.

I think you are the one being hypocrite now as you, like any other atheist think only on forwarding your nonsense without providing a logical answer to my question.

You don't seem to understand that word you just keep throwing out. You don't know that God exists either, so it is entirely logical to point out that the multiverse and God and 'something else unknown that can create universes' also work just fine in your rather tortured 'Logic' structure.

It is preposterous that you demand that I should accept your hypothetical balderdash when you are not ready at all to consider the possibility of an outside Entity Who has caused the universe to exist. All this time in vain trying to squeeze out of you a logical answer and there is nothing in the emptiness of your skull.

Let's suppose you are correct. Now, provide a complete list of things who are not matter that can cause universes to exist, and most importantly, the evidence supporting their existence. If you are just going to presume your God fits this bill, then you need to provide some evidence that it is specifically him, otherwise you need to allow in all the other things that have just as much (or little, or no) evidence to support them, or explain why all those other possibilities could not have caused the universe to be created. Do you know what 'special pleading' means, Captain Logic?

That's for you to provide. I never suggested that some thing else other than the Primal Cause gave origin to the universe. You are simply pleading the question.

Better yet, why don't you cease with your ignorant statements concerning the psyche of 'atheists' that you likewise can't support.

Even better yet, why don't you cease your ignorance by providing only balderdash through verbal juggling that means nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ben Masada

Unfortunately like leonardo you misunderstand the nature of logic and its uses.

Logic will often come to false conclusions where it is based on false premises. In religious amters all premises are based on beliefs as yours clearly are thus all conclusions are non verifiable althoughthey may be logical

leonardos argument

No, the premise(s) must be true for the logic to hold.

You are correct that logic can supply wrong conclusions, and this is usually through insufficient or faulty information/knowledge. But the premise(s) must be held to be true. If the premise(s) can be falsified, the logic is faulty.

That is impossible because then one can only use logic when one knows something to be true and not to determine the potential truth of something. I think you are refering to the validity of a total logical argument which requires a correct premise to arrive at correctconclusion, rather than the inherent logic of a process of thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion's probable truth.[6] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth, for example, the persuasiveness of so-called "indispensability claims" in transcendental arguments,[7] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.[8]

A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion.[1] In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure. More complex arguments can use a series of rules to connect several premises to one conclusion, or to derive a number of conclusions from the original premises which then act as premises for additional conclusions. An example of this is the use of the rules of inference found within symbolic logic.

In logic, a rule of inference, inference rule, or transformation rule is the act of drawing a conclusion based on the form of premises interpreted as a function which takes premises, analyzes their syntax, and returns a conclusion (or conclusions). For example, the rule of inference modus ponens takes two premises, one in the form of "If p then q" and another in the form of "p" and returns the conclusion "q". The rule is valid with respect to the semantics of classical logic (as well as the semantics of many other non-classical logics), in the sense that if the premises are true (under an interpretation) then so is the conclusion.

Thus, asIi stated, one can only arrive at a true conclusion using true premises, but one can use logic based on untrue premises, in just the same manner. However one will arrive at untrue conclusions.

Because humans rarely know the truth about many things, their conclusions are also often untrue, even thougth entirely based on logic.

Any use of logic pertaining to god will probably produce untrue conclusions becausee its premises will be false, due to human ignorance about the nature/existence of god..

BUT, in philosophical terms, one can present two hypothetical premises and reach a number of logical conclusions from those premises.

Thus

If god is knowable ie recognizable/perceivable.

If the definition of a god does not exclude such a being being knowable.

Then a god can be known

If god is not physicalin nature or form, then god cannot be physically known.

If your definition of god excludes the physical, then any physical entity you can recognise or perceive is NOT god for you, no matter how godly it appears.

Great lesson on Logic, I must admit. Including the logic of your last statement. Yes, my definition of God excludes the physical. God is a Spiritual Being. Therefore not corporeal. You are totally right that a priory nothing physical could be defined as God in my way to perceive Reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

Whatever you mean by "gremlins" it must be matter and therefore part of the universe that did not cause itself to exist.

If God created the universe does this mean he also 'must be matter' and therefore part of the universe? If he doesn't have to be but gremlins must be, then explain why. If you don't explain why, the only answer I can think of is that you are special pleading (you can look up that term on wiki if you don't understand what it means). If you can presume that God is not matter and outside of the universe then provide the reason why you can't presume that gremlins cannot also be non-matter and outside of the universe?

I think you are the one being hypocrite now as you, like any other atheist think only on forwarding your nonsense without providing a logical answer to my question.

I've provided a logical answer to your question multiple times: we, including you, do not know what caused this universe nor what is necessary to create universes. Without that information, I don't know why you think a god is a more likely answer than anything else we can just dream up.

It is preposterous that you demand that I should accept your hypothetical balderdash when you are not ready at all to consider the possibility of an outside Entity Who has caused the universe to exist.

I have considered an outside entity that caused the universe to exist, I've considered that the outside entity is God. I've also considered that there is no evidence or reasoning that makes a god a more likely cause of the creation of the universe than any other 'hypothetical balderdash' you or I can dream up. I can presume all manners of things, that I've laid out for you multiple times, that might have caused the universe. The reason I can presume all manners of things that can create universe is because we have no information on what is required to create universes or how that is done, so there's no way to differentiate currently between all these hypotheses. If you have some information on this, your mere opinions don't count, please provide it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scowl

Logic is to be applied inside the universe and not outside. God is not subject to Logic.

If you are trying to convince us of this definition of "God" you might as well also try to convince us that sometimes 1+1=3.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium

The problem is not with me but with you for not being able to understand what I am talking about, or... by the same token you refuse to understand my use of Logic to demonstrate what I am talking about. I understand that you do not know how the "singularity" led to the BB. Did this so-called "singularity" cause itself to exist? Of course, you don't know. Sorry, I had already forgotten that the only thing you know is that it was not always there but was not caused. In other words, a paradox. Would not that call for the use of the concept of probability? Probably not as anything akin to the existence of the Primal Cause must be rejected at its onset.

Don't you realize how laughable is to say that if you do not know about something the use of Logic by any one else is invalid? If the Primal Cause may not be necessary, how was the universe caused to exist? You don't know; it began but perhaps alone, you could say. So it caused itself to exist? You don't know. You know only one thing: That it was not the Primal Cause which you even deny a vote of probability. No wonder some theists claim that Atheism is a fundamentalist form of religion. It depends which facts today do not support my views. Logic does, although I am afraid you guys will end up hating Logic as much as the probability for the Primal Cause.

You don't know if the universe was caused to exist. You are basing your whole entire argument on an opinion/belief that you have, but that is not backed up by anything substantial. I never said that the 'primal cause' is impossible- only that there is not enough evidence to make that claim, or to make the reverse claim. At this point in human history we simply do not know, and to make that claim that you know means that the burden of proof is on you. I make no such claims, because I acknowledge that I do not know.

Look at it this way. Say that you grow up inside of a house with no windows and you are not allowed outside. You learn all there is to know about that house, all the intricate details about its inner structure, all the different colors and textures. You start to make theories about how the house came to be, you theorize that God must have built it because "there has to be a primal cause!" but really you simply just have no knowledge about the outside world. To you- the outside world does not exist. You would not know that people from the outside world built the house, you do not even know that there are outside people. You do not even know how to define 'outside'. You have no concept of it.

Take that person, and do you think their beliefs and theories about what 'caused' the house to exist are going to be accurate? Because that person is you, and that house is the universe. We humans are unable to look outside of it, unable to even understand if there is an 'outside' or what that 'outside' might be like. Our observations are limited to the inside, and so since we have absolutely no concept of 'outside' any theory or belief we have about that 'outside' or how/why the universe came to be is going to be extremely inaccurate. Now that, my friend, is practical logic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
magnum mysterium

Many people think that because God is the Supreme Creator of the Universe, He must have created all things.

Let me bring to your attention samples of three other things God did not create because they constitute a by-product or an accident of matter. Energy, time and space. Oh yes, it's natural to get startled at this revelation.

God did not create energy. Energy is an accident of matter. A by-product of God's creation. How about time? This is an accident of motion. Time comes about as matter moves. There is no time in inertia. And for space, what is space? This is the limited distance between matter and matter. Therefore, an accident of matter at a certain distance from each other.

God created every "thing," and that includes byproducts because they are a part of the order of "things." It's like a finished story: Once you know the ending, you know every single detail about it. He did not, however, create all unknown realities. For example, I believe He can't create knowledge that has never entered His mind in the first place. God knows every "thing" because He conceived the universe.

"Every THING is fixed and you can't change it" Jesus Christ Superstar

Is free will a thing??

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

My logic tells me the universe wasn't created, but was born as part of a natural system, birth, death and rebirth of many universes. I can't say if is true, but It is what makes the most sense to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium

My logic tells me the universe wasn't created, but was born as part of a natural system, birth, death and rebirth of many universes. I can't say if is true, but It is what makes the most sense to me.

That is what makes the most sense to me as well. I also can't say it is true, but if we look around us cycles of nature are responsible for pretty much all the phenomena we observe, so it is logical to draw the conclusion that the universe itself is no different.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

God did not create energy. Energy is an accident of matter. A by-product of God's creation. How about time? This is an accident of motion. Time comes about as matter moves. There is no time in inertia. And for space, what is space? This is the limited distance between matter and matter. Therefore, an accident of matter at a certain distance from each other.

Energy is an accident of matter? You truly have no concept of what Energy is...or isn't. There is no space...there is no time...there is no God. The only thing that Does exist...the only thing that has EVER existed..the only thing that ever WILL exist is Energy. Infinite Energy, manifesting in an infinite number of forms, for an infinite number of reasons, none of which I am privy to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spiritualghosthaunting

Infinite Energy, manifesting in an infinite number of forms, for an infinite number of reasons, none of which I am privy to.

Yours is one school of metaphysical assumption. do you think our spirit is made of energy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.