Can logic lead to religion?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM
What? Are you seriously going to deny premise number 1, that "everything that exists has a cause?" It's one thing to say the premise isn't true, but another thing to disprove the established law of cause and effect.

Yes, I am serious, I won't deny premise 1, but I claim it is not necessarily true. The universe might not have began to exist do to any other cause than itself, see the Hawking quote in the other thread, or read some of his or other theoretical astrophysicists or cosmologists. It is of course only a hypothesis and it will be long before it is a practically testable hypothesis, but just as we can't claim it is impossible that god exists, it is also not impossible that the universe exists without a cause. In fact, the two are about equally likely presently.

The conclusion that God must have created the universe makes perfect sense because in order for space and time to be created, it must have been created by something that exists outside of space and time. If not God, then what?

It may make sense, but that doesn't mean it is correct. As I said it is possible that space and time came to be without a creator outside itself. And even if there was a creator outside of time and space, that is not necessarily the christian god - it could be many gods, or another godly being. Besides, the cosmological argument suffer from another unsolved problem: who or what created the creator? If everything that exists has a First cause, ie a creator, why is the creator excluded from this premise? Genesis 1:1 KJV says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" but where did god come from? Why should it be more likely that god came to be without a cause than that the universe came to be without a cause?

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans

Yes, I am serious, I won't deny premise 1, but I claim it is not necessarily true. The universe might not have began to exist do to any other cause than itself, see the Hawking quote in the other thread, or read some of his or other theoretical astrophysicists or cosmologists. It is of course only a hypothesis and it will be long before it is a practically testable hypothesis, but just as we can't claim it is impossible that god exists, it is also not impossible that the universe exists without a cause. In fact, the two are about equally likely presently. It may make sense, but that doesn't mean it is correct. As I said it is possible that space and time came to be without a creator outside itself. And even if there was a creator outside of time and space, that is not necessarily the christian god - it could be many gods, or another godly being.

... the cosmological argument suffer from another unsolved problem: who or what created the creator? If everything that exists has a First cause, ie a creator, why is the creator excluded from this premise? Genesis 1:1 KJV says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" but where did god come from? Why should it be more likely that god came to be without a cause than that the universe came to be without a cause?

You've argued yourself into a conunundrum, CE. You won't deny premise 1 that "everything that exists has a cause," but at the same time you won't admit that's it's true? This isn't some half-baked hypothesis we're talking about; it's a fundamental law of science. You may as well state that the Law of the Conservation of Energy is not necessarily true, either. How many other established laws of physics do you feel this way towards? I'm sure you don't feel this way about the "laws" that govern evolution. And speaking of Hawking... his theoretical works on the origin of the universe is irrelevant to this discussion, since he himself in the "Brief History of Time" confessed that "the whole idea [of the universe existing due to any cause other than itself] is just a proposal, and cannot be deduced from some other principal." In other words, it belongs more in the realm of fantasy than in the realm of science.

The question of who created God is a self-defeating one, since God, by definition, is uncreated, eternal, transcendent, beyond space and time. He must be, in order for him to have created a temporal, finite universe bound by space and time.

Oh, and one more thing... the two alternatives which you mentioned regarding the origin of the universe are mutually exclusive; one is correct, the other is dead wrong. But whereas one idea obeys physical law, the other idea flies in the face of it - strives desperately in fact to find a some mathematical loophole to avoid the philosophical/theological implications of the first idea being true.

[Chanak]

@Tom: I find all of this quite interesting. I enjoyed your post, btw. I read all of it.

I find the field of quantum physics to be utterly fascinating. Within, I believe, science is bridging the gap between the things we see, and the things which we cannot see. Most professionals in the field confess that when you get right down to it, the universe is strange. Much of quantum physics appears to fall outside the realm of the rational and logical.

When I consider logic itself, I often think of Schrodinger's Cat. You eventually have to admit that the cat simply does not exist until you open the box. Until then - logically - the cat does not exist at all. Of course it really does exist - or does it?

Logic, I feel, is not an end unto itself. On it's own, logic can lead you to believe that existence dwells completely within the confines of your own mind, that everything about you - including other people - only exist as thoughts. It can also lead you to the conclusion that genocide is an acceptable practice, or that certain members of the population should be exterminated in order to improve society and the economy of a nation.

These are extremes, but logic in and of itself is extreme, and necessarily so. It is but a tool, an extension of the mind designed to define and identify. One can arrive at any destination they wish by the proper use of logic - logic is blind, after all.

I do not think that belief in god - a being above our own existence, greater than any force which currently exists in the universe as we know it - constitutes possessing a religion. Religion is something else entirely, and is actually an institution designed to control an individual. Atheism is a religion, by my definition. It possesses it's own belief system and method of thinking. So is Christianity, and Buddhism, and Wicca. Logic can most certainly lead you to any of these religions, just as certainly as it can lead you to believe that 13 is an "unlucky" number.

Just the same, logic can lead you to a belief in the existence of a god. Yet, simply because logic supports something does not necessarily make it true. One's logical belief in god can be countered by a logical explanation which asserts that god does not exist. It goes on and on, and around in circles endlessly. It varies with the premises.

I believe you have to open the box, so to speak, in order to see if the cat exists or not. The experience of quantum physicists demonstrates that nothing is for certain - it only exists in probabilities. That is not logical, yet it is. And experience, truly, defeats logic in the end, for logic is limited by our minds, and understanding.

What is my belief, my logical conclusion? God most certainly exists. Call god whatever you will, it really doesn't matter - god is beyond our understanding, and also beyond the relatively futile grasp of logic to comprehend. You simply can't classify something that is outside of the human experience - our minds must grasp at shapes and certainties in order to understand a concept.

It is a fact that logic cannot understand, quantify, affirm, or deny the existence of god, nor the concept of god. Therefore you must rely on something else in order to understand, quantify, affirm - or even deny - the existence of god: experience, and belief. As surely as I believe that this monitor exists in front of me, I also believe that god exists.

Are you real? How would you explain this to an ant, who cannot possibly grasp all of you at once?

[Xandax]

Originally posted by EMINEM
<snip>

The question of who created God is a self-defeating one, since God, by definition, is uncreated, eternal, transcendent, beyond space and time. He must be, in order for him to have created a temporal, finite universe bound by space and time.
<snip>

So it is okay for somethings to *must be*..... hmm, logical.

So just as well as "God" *must have been* to create the universe, it is not possible for some other matter with zero size and infinite hot temperatur to *must be* and thus creating all requierments for (some of) the Big Bang threoies.

This comes down to faith, not logical reasoning.
The argument that God *must have been* and is uncreated, eternal, etc can just as easily be used on that there really was something (physical matter, possible with zero size) before the Big Bang that we just don't know of, since our Space-Time was created there.

[Delacroix]

A small comment:

For those who like the contents and the main point of the topic, I recomend Blaise Pascal, my favorite matematician.(He had the great ilumination to give it up )

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Nice to see you around, @Chanak.

@MM-Apologies if I've got this wrong, but if we accept premise 1 (I haven't studied this sufficiently to be able to comment on it with any real weight) that everything that exists has a cause, doesn't that mean that God, if he/she/it exists, must also have a cause, just as the universe apparently does?
How is it possible that this applies to the universe, supposedly proving God's existence, yet not to God, whose very existence is what is (for all intents and purposes) currently being debated?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM
In other words, it belongs more in the realm of fantasy than in the realm of science.

Of course - the big bang cosmology is, to quote Curdis who is a physicist, more or less poetry. It is not religion, since there are testable hypotheses, but these hypotheses aren't testable presently. Thus, it it speculation, just as believing in gods are.

Remember, I am not at all talking science here, I am discussing logics. Science is not equal to logics, thankfully, if it was, we'd never make any new discoveries! As I said before, I think it can be perfectly logical to believe in god - it is irrational, not illogical.

The question of who created God is a self-defeating one, since God, by definition, is uncreated, eternal, transcendent, beyond space and time. He must be, in order for him to have created a temporal, finite universe bound by space and time.

Yes, if you build in this definition in advance in the premise, then the argument is still correct. However, this definition shows what we are dealing with here: faith, not facts. It seems to me MM that you want to use logics to prove your god exists, but then you don't want to apply the same logics on your god since he is beyond space and time.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans


Yes, if you build in this definition in advance in the premise, then the argument is still correct. However, this definition shows what we are dealing with here: faith, not facts. It seems to me MM that you want to use logics to prove your god exists, but then you don't want to apply the same logics on your god since he is beyond space and time.

Scientific law is not based on faith. The cosmological argument and the law of cause and effect holds true irrespective of whether you believe in it or not - much like the law of gravitation (but you will not, I hope, go rock-climbing and suddenly believe that law to not be necessary true). The premise that "everything that exists has a cause" is so intuitively, philosophically, and scientifically obvious that any attempt to get around it, or find a loophole, can be attributed more to some psychological or intellectual discomfort towards its unavoidable conclusion than some noble scientific pursuit to shed light on the matter.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Nice to see you around, @Chanak.

@MM-Apologies if I've got this wrong, but if we accept premise 1 (I haven't studied this sufficiently to be able to comment on it with any real weight) that everything that exists has a cause, doesn't that mean that God, if he/she/it exists, must also have a cause, just as the universe apparently does?
How is it possible that this applies to the universe, supposedly proving God's existence, yet not to God, whose very existence is what is (for all intents and purposes) currently being debated?

God does not have a cause because God is uncaused. If he were not, he wouldn't be God!

If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. Either it was a free agent or it was just a mechanical physical cause. The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Why? Because if the necessary and sufficient conditions were present from eternity, the effect would also be present from eternity. It's impossible to explain how the sufficient conditions could exist timelessly or eternally and not also have the effect equally co–present. The only way that a temporal effect could arise from an eternal cause is if the cause is a free, personal agent who is able to freely create the universe without antecedent determining conditions. And therefore it follows: The universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent that has no beginning, is changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God (Christianity just flushes out the details).

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans

Of course - the big bang cosmology is, to quote Curdis who is a physicist, more or less poetry. It is not religion, since there are testable hypotheses, but these hypotheses aren't testable presently. Thus, it it speculation, just as believing in gods are.

No, it's not poetry, or speculation anymore. It may have been decades ago, but it is the paradigm now. And if you're looking for empirical evidence for the Big Bang hypothesis, look no further than the expansion of the universe. According to the standard Big Bang cosmological model, the universe is not infinite in the past, but began to exist at a point in the finite past about 15 billion years ago. Not only all matter and energy, but physical space and time, were created in that event, so that there is literally nothing prior to the origin of the universe. To quote one authority on this subject, Paul Davies, in his article, "Space–time Singularities and Cosmology," says,

"If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space–time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of space–time itself."

[Xandax]

Originally posted by EMINEM

Scientific law is not based on faith. The cosmological argument and the law of cause and effect holds true irrespective of whether you believe in it or not - much like the law of gravitation (but you will not, I hope, go rock-climbing and suddenly believe that law to not be necessary true).

Still:
You state:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
and
4: (most importent) that it is God that is that cause but he doesn't need a cause to be created, because he is God.
(am I following your line of thought?)

it is that item 4 I dissagrees with, you can't use logical reasoning to prove the first 3 items and not continue the same line of reasoning onto item 4.

If everything needs a cause to exist =>
then God also needs a cause.
Otherwise:
If God dosen't need a cause to exsits
(even if people *define* him not to, other people could *define* the zero-size univers just the same) => then everything doesn't need a cause => and thus the univers dosen't need a cause.

Originally posted by EMINEM

The premise that "everything that exists has a cause" is so intuitively, philosophically, and scientifically obvious that any attempt to get around it, or find a loophole, can be attributed more to some psychological or intellectual discomfort towards its unavoidable conclusion than some noble scientific pursuit to shed light on the matter.

Actually it is you that are trying to get around the fact that "everything that exists has a cause" , but as you say yourself it , can be attributed more to some psychological or intellectual discomfort towards its unavoidable conclusion

[frogus]

I think the argument is that everything physical has to have a cause of existence...not everything which exists, but anything which exists in the physical universe which we know.
Anyway, I think that this discussion is not a good one until we know a great deal more about whatever branch of physics it is that deals with this stuff. We do not really know what is possible when we start talking about such cosmic events, and logic should not be applied in vain, especially when it flies in the face of expert scientific opinion. The fact is, matter may well just come into existence uncausedly, and events may take place in an infinately long regression of causes...I, and I am almost certain you do not know.
So why not talk about another of the good arguments for God's existence...copied from a Catholic website:

The argument from universal consent

The confirmatory argument based on the consent of mankind may be stated briefly as follows: mankind as a whole has at all times and everywhere believed and continues to believe in the existence of some superior being or beings on whom the material world and man himself are dependent, and this fact cannot be accounted for except by admitting that this belief is true or at least contains a germ of truth. It is admitted of course that Polytheism, Dualism, Pantheism, and other forms of error and superstition have mingled with and disfigured this universal belief of mankind, but this does not destroy the force of the argument we are considering. For at least the germinal truth which consists in the recognition of some kind of deity is common to every form of religion and can therefore claim in its support the universal consent of mankind. And how can this consent be explained except as a result of the perception by the minds of men of the evidence for the existence of deity?


or

The argument from conscience

To Newman and others the argument from conscience, or the sense of moral responsibility, has seemed the most intimately persuasive of all the arguments for God's existence, while to it alone Kant allowed an absolute value. But this is not an independent argument, although, properly understood, it serves to emphasize a point in the general a posteriori proof which is calculated to appeal with particular force to many minds. It is not that conscience, as such, contains a direct revelation or intuition of God as the author of the moral law, but that, taking man's sense of moral responsibility as a phenomenon to be explained, no ultimate explanation can be given except by supposing the existence of a Superior and Lawgiver whom man is bound to obey. And just as the argument from design brings out prominently the attribute of intelligence, so the argument from science brings out the attribute of holiness in the First Cause and self-existent Personal Being with whom we must ultimately identify the Designer and the Lawgiver.



Are these good logic?

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by Xandax

Actually it is you that are trying to get around the fact that "everything that exists has a cause" , but as you say yourself it , can be attributed more to some psychological or intellectual discomfort towards its unavoidable conclusion

The cosmological argument has been around since Plato and Aristotle. Atheistis and agnostic philosophers have been jousting with this windmill for centuries, proposing one implausible hypothesis after another that will hopefully circumvents its first premise. It cannot be found without overturning fundamental laws of physics. On the other hand, Christian theists have been its traditional defenders . We have no problem accepting its premises and theological implications, since it points in the direction of Genesis 1:1 - ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") and Romans 1:20 ("Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.") It reinforces what we already believe to be the truth.

[Xandax]

Wich is why it is faith.

cause as I see it *Everything* must have a cause for that reasoning to be true. (wether or not it be spiritual, religious or physical)
You can't have it only true when it fits with with religion, and when it dosen't fit make some statement that is *solely* based on faith.

[K0r/\/f1@k€$]

The Ontological argument
1. It is a conceptual truth (or, so to speak, true by definition) that God is a being than which none greater can be imagined (i.e., the greatest possible being that can be imagined).
2. God exists as an idea in the mind.
3. A being that exists as an idea in the mind and in reality is, other things being equal, greater than a being that exists only as an idea in the mind.
4. Thus, if God exists only as an idea in the mind, then we can imagine something that is greater than God (i.e., a greatest possible being that does exist).
5. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God (for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.)
6. Therefore, God exists.

I would contest point 3 on the grounds that being part of reality constrains you to the laws that all real things must obey whereas things that exist only as ideas in our minds do not.

Any thoughts?

[fable]

Originally posted by EMINEM
We have no problem accepting its premises and theological implications, since it points in the direction of Genesis 1:1 - ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") and Romans 1:20 ("Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.") It reinforces what we already believe to be the truth.

Surely the bible doesn't reinforce what you already believe to be the truth, but rather, states what you believe to be the truth, and then seek elsewhere for confirmation? Isn't your creed founded on the contents of the bible?

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by fable


Surely the bible doesn't reinforce what you already believe to be the truth, but rather, states what you believe to be the truth, and then seek elsewhere for confirmation? Isn't your creed founded on the contents of the bible?

The "it" I'm referring to in the last sentence is the cosmological argument, not the Bible.

[Tom]

First of all I have to apologise for my first post, it was misleading. I can only say that I was busy with other things and tried to do it as quick as possible and that it was before noon when my brain is not quite up to speed.

The ontological argument is not only a deductive argument but it is a purely conceptual argument.
Thus one can set up the cosmological argument as a deductive argument but it is not a conceptual argument and that is the distinction.

I am very sorry about the confusion.

So to recap. The ontological appeals to nothing except the concept of god and claims that it follows from the concept that god must exist.

[Tom]

@ Chanak
Since you read my post carefully I felt that it would only be fair if I returned your courtesy.
I am confused on a number of points.

Are you saying that the thought experiment Schrodinger’s cat shows that basic logical laws do not always hold?
The law of non-contradiction states that ‘Nothing both is and is not.’ (So it is necessarily false to say ‘my cup is and is not’). One might think that Schrodinger’s cat both is and is not. I don't think this is the case. According to the classical interpretation the cat exists in a superposition of states until an observation is made. That does not mean, as far as I can understand, that the physicists who support this version think that the cat exists and do not exist.

Any way I don't think that that version of quantum physics is correct - I think that there is something more fundamental which physicists have yet to find - but that is another subject.

---------------
Chanak:
These are extremes, but logic in and of itself is extreme, and necessarily so. It is but a tool, an extension of the mind designed to define and identify. One can arrive at any destination they wish by the proper use of logic - logic is blind, after all.
-------------

Here again I am confused by what you say. First you say ‘logic is extreme’ this really makes no sense to me.
Then you seem to claim that logic is somehow dependent on the mind?
That is a very counter intuitive position to take I think. One problem is that it seems to make everything mind-dependent. Take the law of non-contradiction. Whether this logical law holds is some how dependent on your mind. Then consider your computer screen, the law states that it either exists or doesn't exist. But since the law is dependent on your mind then so it seems is the state of your computer screen, in fact the whole world and its state now seem to depend on your mind. the same thing seem to follow if we use another example of a fundamental logical law ‘what is, is’ (the law of identity).

--------------
Chanak:
It is a fact that logic cannot understand, quantify, affirm, or deny the existence of god, nor the concept of god. Therefore you must rely on something else in order to understand, quantify, affirm - or even deny - the existence of god: experience, and belief. As surely as I believe that this monitor exists in front of me, I also believe that god exists.
---------------

Again I don't really understand this. But if you mean that one cannot prove that god does not exist using logical (more accurately conceptual) arguments then I agree. I too believe in my computer monitor because I can see it. one of the reasons I don't believe in god is that I haven’t seen him.

[Tom]

@Eminem

You claim that everything must have a first cause - then you claim that god is uncaused. As Ode to a grasshopper correctly points out there is a conflict here.

Originally posted by EMINEM

God does not have a cause because God is uncaused. If he were not, he wouldn't be God!

This surly implies that the principle doesn't always hold - namely in the case of god.

Originally posted by EMINEM

If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. Either it was a free agent or it was just a mechanical physical cause. The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. Why? Because if the necessary and sufficient conditions were present from eternity, the effect would also be present from eternity. It's impossible to explain how the sufficient conditions could exist timelessly or eternally and not also have the effect equally co–present. The only way that a temporal effect could arise from an eternal cause is if the cause is a free, personal agent who is able to freely create the universe without antecedent determining conditions. And therefore it follows: The universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent that has no beginning, is changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God (Christianity just flushes out the details).

The Universe is by definition everything.

So if there are some conditions going back before the big bang then that means the universe existed before the big bang. If these conditions go back eternally then the universe has existed forever. There are no philosophical problems with this as far as I can see.
But, I do find it problematic that god is outside space. How does he influence space is he is outside it? another problem is if he is outside time then how does he change. Maybe he doesn't change but then how does he effect things? To me all this is just pure speculation with a whole lot of holes.

I know I have said this before but I think it is an important. Even if we agree that there is a creating god then how do we get to the Christian idea of god?
You say Christianity just flushes out the details. Flush indeed. How? So god all of a sudden have all these properties, goodness being the main one. I don't see where it all comes from.