Can logic lead to religion?

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:12 am

To me if God exists, it cannot

'logically' be omniscient or omnipotent, mainly because such a thing is not consistent with the observed facts, it would imply that such a being has no need for anything at all because such a being is already the all and everything, therefore wherefore the logical reason for creation of anything.

To me it makes much more sense that the universe(this term meaning everthing that exists not necessarily our current reality) is infinite and if such deities exist are merely bigger players in a very intricate stage, which is infinite in extent and eternal in lifetime. If logically God is the all the entire stage in other words, then such a God is not logically the God portrayed in the popular texts, the God portrayed in the religious text is fairly limited, having rages, hatreds vendettas, vengeance, and yes to love compassion, fairly human in other words and therefore not infinite.

Oh well thats just my two cents as they call it, my thinking seems a bit confusing, hope I was clear.

poop should have read the preceding quotes more accurately said it a lot better.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:22 am

@InfiniteNature-nonsense, everyone's opinion is welcome here. In a way I sort of wish SS was still here, in spite of her fiery temper she was around a lot and would have added to the debate IMO, especially since it's mostly only EMINEM arguing for the affirmative.
A more even debate numbers-wise would have been interesting.

InfiniteNature · Post by **InfiniteNature** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:38 am

Hi Ode so the Slurrites are still around even after all this time, would have thought all that drinking would have killed the last ones weeks ago.

Are those two drunks still around?

Funny I basically started the SLURRers basically as just a joke thread seems to have grown in my absence, and no I did not forget my password, just wanted a change of name to fit my newfound personality change.

Was to lazy to read the whole thread, so I just put in my speal before seeing the threads that already agreed.

Does logic lead to faith?, faith or religion, there is a difference you know, does science lead to religion is the question, logic like so many others have said is so subjective as to be able to lead to anything, though of course I tend to have a bias against religion, but hey I admit I am more for science then religion, seems a outdated way of explaining the way the world works, only still around because while science explained the way the world worked, it did not give any attempt to replace the spiritual vacuum which religion left behind, that need for the higher cause, there was no religion of secularism in other words no common whole not even to humanity, which is why the old religions still hang around. Ever wonder why there are no new religions out these days I mean if you think about it why is that, in the old days there were new faiths, new religions popping up all the time, now there basically isn't squat, I mean sure we have the New Age religions but these are nothing more than rehashed versions of old religions which have already died out. Why the current desert of religion, perhaps it is because science has done much to remove the impetus behind it, except for the spiritual need(which as a scientist I do not discount), science has essentially made religion redundant.

There needs to be basically a new religion perhaps based on humanism, so that the definite need for spirituality and the need to act on things greater than base desires can be addressed.

Oh well what do you all think?

Of on a tangent again, sorry.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:44 am

So as not to spam up the thread, I'll answer all your off-topic questions etc in the Rolling Thunder. Just click the main link in my sig to get there.

Sorry for the spam @all.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 5:59 pm

Originally posted by 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.

Not at all. God, by definition, is uncaused. He cannot have a first cause because he himself is the first cause - the first cause of everything else that is. (I'm getting a headache). He is not some pantheistic being part and parcel of the universe, but separate from it, like a painter is separate from his painting.

The Universe is by definition everything.

No, the universe is not everything. See below.

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.

On the contrary, there are major philosophical, scientific and empirical problems with this. First of all, the universe could not have always existed because then it would be infinite - and an actual infinite cannot exist. To paraphrase Kant,

"... If the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed and there has passed away in the world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world–series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence."

Moreover, empirical evidence has shown the universe is expanding(surely you were aware of this already). And because it is expanding, it is therefore finite; it has limitations and boundaries. If it were infinite, it would have no need to expand.

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.

Mankind's basic understanding of God is that of Creator and sustainer of creation, a Deity of the nature he created. Most children adopt this view. Those who take a more mature view see God as a creator, judge, and lawgiver; the dispenser of justice and punishment. Still, God's character and personal attributes outside his divine functions remain relatively obscure, since human beings communicate on a more personal level. But what if God were to become mortal, take on a human avatar, and live for a time among other mortals? How would he live? What would he say? What kind of impact would he leave behind? Well, this is the message of the Incarnation; that the Jewish Rabbi, Yeshuah Bar-Joseph, who lived during the reign of Caesar Augustus in first century Palestine, was God in the flesh. From him and his disciples is where we get the Christian idea of God.

Zelgadis · Post by **Zelgadis** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 6:46 pm

Originally posted by frogus 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?

All societies also beleived the sun revolved around the earth, the earth is flat, ecetera, yet that is all false.

Originally posted by frogus 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.

Actually, evolutionarily speaking, it can be more advantageous for the individual to act for the good of the species, rather than just himself, thus promoting moral behavior.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Aug 19, 2002 10:59 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
<snip>
God, by definition, is uncaused. He cannot have a first cause because he himself is the first cause - the first cause of everything else that is. <snip>

And this is still where I would say, as I did often through this thread, that faith comes into play.
If one isn't a beliver in "God" (as an entity or concept) this "*definition*" is not one that could/would be supported.
Only people beliving in God would be able to support that definition.

Okay - well this is starting to go into circles.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:29 am

Originally posted by EMINEM

Not at all. God, by definition, is uncaused. He cannot have a first cause because he himself is the first cause - the first cause of everything else that is. (I'm getting a headache). He is not some pantheistic being part and parcel of the universe, but separate from it, like a painter is separate from his painting.

I know why you are getting a head ache. You cant have a principle that says ‘everything has a cause’ and maintain at the same time that something is uncaused.

Originally posted by EMINEM

No, the universe is not everything. See below.

I hate to get childish but, oooohhh yes it is.

According to my oxford dictionary: universe. noun. everything that exists.

Originally posted by EMINEM

On the contrary, there are major philosophical, scientific and empirical problems with this. First of all, the universe could not have always existed because then it would be infinite - and an actual infinite cannot exist. To paraphrase Kant,

"... If the world has no beginning in time, then up to every given moment an eternity has elapsed and there has passed away in the world an infinite series of successive states of things. Now the infinity of a series consists in the fact it can never be completed through successive synthesis. It thus follows that it is impossible for an infinite world–series to have passed away, and that a beginning of the world is therefore a necessary condition of the world's existence."

Now I see what you mean. he he.
I have never seen that argument before (shame on me) but then I didn't do philosophy of religion. I will have to think about it. I really like that argument it is very very clever.
I want to return to this in the future if that’s ok with you. I will however say this. There are a number of areas that need clarification. The nature of time and change is important here and I'm not sure that there are not theories where the augment won’t work. Also the nature of infinity seems important and needs to be looked at.

But even if we imagine that the universe started at some point that does not indicate that god created it.

Originally posted by EMINEM

Moreover, empirical evidence has shown the universe is expanding(surely you were aware of this already). And because it is expanding, it is therefore finite; it has limitations and boundaries. If it were infinite, it would have no need to expand.

I am aware that the galaxies and the local groups are moving away from each other and accelerating. This is consistent with the hypothesis that the universe is infinite. But it is not important whether it is infinite in size. Let us imagine it is finite in size and expanding. Science know very little about what happened around the time of the big bang and it is conceivable that there was something before the big bang which caused it to come about.

Originally posted by EMINEM

Mankind's basic understanding of God is that of Creator and sustainer of creation, a Deity of the nature he created. Most children adopt this view.

After they have been told it is so.

Originally posted by EMINEM

Those who take a more mature view see God as a creator, judge, and lawgiver; the dispenser of justice and punishment. Still, God's character and personal attributes outside his divine functions remain relatively obscure, since human beings communicate on a more personal level. But what if God were to become mortal, take on a human avatar, and live for a time among other mortals? How would he live? What would he say? What kind of impact would he leave behind? Well, this is the message of the Incarnation; that the Jewish Rabbi, Yeshuah Bar-Joseph, who lived during the reign of Caesar Augustus in first century Palestine, was God in the flesh. From him and his disciples is where we get the Christian idea of God.

Predictably I don't think that Jesus was god incarnated but rather a fraud or madman. (i hope you do not take offence at the last bit, I truly enjoy this debate

)

Ode to a Grasshopper · Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:43 am

Hate to use anecdotal evidence but...

Originally posted by EMINEM

Mankind's basic understanding of God is that of Creator and sustainer of creation, a Deity of the nature he created. Most children adopt this view. Those who take a more mature view see God as a creator, judge, and lawgiver; the dispenser of justice and punishment.

Interestingly enough, as a child (and hence arguably less mature than I am now-if you can believe that

), I believed in God, as my parents (though also notbelieving in God) encouraged me to. It was as I grew older and more experienced that my belief in God disappeared.
It is also worth noting that my younger sister, widely acknowledged to be less 'mature' than I am, still holds a belief in God.
Evidently maturity can change one's views away from the above view, as well as towards it.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:25 am

Simple

Faith. You can not get past the fact that your Christian Religion is based on faith. Not logic or facts or hard core straight right on truth, faith. And by definition
FAITH -
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief.

Now you all have gone in circles over and over about creation of the universe and if this god is or isnt the reason behind it all. That is obviuosly something you can not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefor you can not Prove it. There for it is a hypothesis much like many others before it. I will not claim to be a scholar I will not claim to have read a 100 books on the subject. But what I will tell you is from middle school science, if you can not prove something with out a shadow of a doubt then my friend you can not tell others if they are wrong or right.

I say perhaps there is a god or a being that came before us, but to believe that your choice of how that being is percieved is better than mine is absurd.

I say do me a favor, check out http://www.biblebabble.com and then tell me that those contradictions are not found in your bible. the Christian god is a faith, not a fact. Im sorry if I come off arrogant or whatnot, but trying to tell others that they are wrong because god must be because he is the first reason would be imho the same as someone sitting at a Nazi meeting saying that Hitler is all that is great because he was the first to show us what is right and look he has a book too that proves it Mein Kamph. Sure thats harsh but faith is one of the most deadly damn things ever. Want happiness? Forget Religion.

thug

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:29 am

Re: Simple

Originally posted by RandomThug
<snip>
Want happiness? Forget Religion.

Kinda harsh imo - I am sure there are people that have found happiness within/due to religion.
And just as people that belive should respect us that don't, we still need to respect thoese that do belive in some kind of religion.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 11:00 am

Argh

Sure its harsh I understand. Its just that I have had many, repeat MANY, bad instances in my life and seen to many peoples lives hurt by religion. Now not just one religion, many different ones. Some people find happiness in religion and some people can find happiness in racism. Some people live thier entire life living within a belief only to be turned on because of simple human flaws. It is IMHO that when you are overly faithful to a belief you become a danger to others around you. When you get so into something that is faith (see not provable) then you are becoming like a child, believing in the boogie man. I repeat forget religion, not spirutality or "god" but that crackpot which is organized religion.

thug

p.s. dont come back telling me that my instances are singular and do not reflect all religions. My personal experiances have proven to me that religion can be a horrible tool for the ignorant, and through history (learning it i mean) I have come to knowledge that religion has been so since its creation.

I make no apologies. I respect everyones right to an opnion but I refuse to let someone tell a side of a point without having the horrible parts shown too. Your religions have shed more blood and done more harm than you have done good in my honest opinion. I could rant forever but wont. Fanatics are like addicts. Unreliable and untrustworthy. To quote thompson. Never turn your back on a drug, and my own quote never turn your back on a religous man.

thug again

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 11:09 am

Folks, please keep this thread focused on one issue: logic leading to religion. The last two times religious threads got out of hand and went into side areas, we had to close 'em as they jumped out of control. Tempers flared. No discussion here of religion hurting anybody, its truth/falsity, or the bible's accuracy.

So avoid religion bashing, and leave out any statements on these peripheral issues. Please avoid replying to the above posts, too. Any attacks or defenses will be deleted. There seems to be plenty of interest so far in the topic, and we'd genuinely like to keep it going.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:20 pm

Re: Hate to use anecdotal evidence but...

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Interestingly enough, as a child (and hence arguably less mature than I am now-if you can believe that ), I believed in God, as my parents (though also notbelieving in God) encouraged me to. It was as I grew older and more experienced that my belief in God disappeared.
It is also worth noting that my younger sister, widely acknowledged to be less 'mature' than I am, still holds a belief in God.
Evidently maturity can change one's views away from the above view, as well as towards it.

More often away from it, unfortunately, which is exlains why Christ taught that only those with child-like hearts (not brains, mind you) will ever make it to heaven (see Mark 10:15). Not difficult to see why, really; children possess the humility, teachability, and purity of heart in which the germinal of faith can take root and grow.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Tue Aug 20, 2002 9:55 pm

Originally posted by Tom
… You can’t have a principle that says ‘everything has a cause’ and maintain at the same time that something is uncaused.

If you concede the premise that 1) everything that exists has a cause, that 2) the universe exists, and 3) the universe has cause, our debate is over. There’s no need for me to prove that God created the universe, because the metaphysical implications of the cosmological argument invariably points in that direction. If the universe was not created by an uncaused, changeless, timeless, enormously powerful being, then you’re left with an event without a cause; this means the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing - a metaphysical absurdity because out of nothing, nothing comes.

I hate to get childish but, oooohhh yes it is. According to my oxford dictionary: universe. noun. everything that exists.

And according to my Webster’s: Nothing: no thing. Not anthing at all.

The universe is everything, but certainly notnothing. Everything =! Nothing. The universe is not nothing.

But even if we imagine that the universe started at some point that does not indicate that god created it.

“If we imagine?” Let me state this one more time; the universe has a beginning! It’s been scientifically, mathematically, philosophically, and empirically confirmed. Refusing to believe the universe has a beginning is like refusing to believe the earth is round.

Predictably I don't think that Jesus was god incarnated but rather a fraud or madman. (i hope you do not take offence at the last bit, I truly enjoy this debate )

Why? (if you don’t mind my asking).

Ode to a Grasshopper · Wed Aug 21, 2002 12:01 am

Re: Re: Hate to use anecdotal evidence but...

Originally posted by EMINEM

More often away from it, unfortunately, which is exlains why Christ taught that only those with child-like hearts (not brains, mind you) will ever make it to heaven (see Mark 10:15). Not difficult to see why, really; children possess the humility, teachability, and purity of heart in which the germinal of faith can take root and grow.

Ermm, once again my personal experience has shown otherwise, out of the people I know (and as such it can be taken as no more than my own experience), it's more the ones with child-like 'hearts' (or spirits, whichever you prefer) who have turned away from organised religion, and those who are in a hurry to be considered mature/responsible who believe in it.
Case in point, I myself am one of the more simple-souled people I know of, and I do not believe in God at all. Likewise it was only as I grew older that I learned humility (the hard way, unfortunately

) and came to realize that I did not know everything (also the hard way

), as a child I was an arrogant little pain in the @$$.
I would also tend to think that if someone is happier out of a religion than in it, then it is far from unfortunate that they be so, and vice versa.

I get the feeling this debate is going to start going in circles very soon, so I would like to say now I have enjoyed participating (however little I did) and viewing it very much indeed.
Thank you all for a most entertaining thread, and it's nice to see athread on religion that doesn't degenerate into flaming.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 11:26 am

Originally posted by EMINEM
“If we imagine?” Let me state this one more time; the universe has a beginning! It’s been scientifically, mathematically, philosophically, and empirically confirmed. Refusing to believe the universe has a beginning is like refusing to believe the earth is round.

I am glad you didn't use the word proven, that would have been quite amusing.

I have never seen with my own eyes that the Earth is round, i have to assume that is the case and i have been educated to think so but i do now know for certain, there are a select few on this planet who have actually seen it with their own eyes.

My point is that one can assume a lot of things about when the universe was created - if that was the case - but that does not make it so.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 7:34 am

Originally posted by EMINEM

If you concede the premise that 1) everything that exists has a cause, that 2) the universe exists, and 3) the universe has cause, our debate is over. There’s no need for me to prove that God created the universe, because the metaphysical implications of the cosmological argument invariably points in that direction. comes.

It seems we will have to agree to disagree.

Originally posted by EMINEM

If the universe was not created by an uncaused, changeless, timeless, enormously powerful being, then you’re left with an event without a cause; this means the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing - a metaphysical absurdity because out of nothing, nothing

You exaggerate when you say its a metaphysical absurdity. There is something distinctly dissatisfying about something coming out of nothing. However invoking god leaves us ultimately with the same problem because the question arises where did he come from - it merely regresses the problem.

Originally posted by EMINEM

And according to my Webster’s: Nothing: no thing. Not anthing at all.

The universe is everything, but certainly notnothing. Everything =! Nothing. The universe is not nothing.

I'm afraid you completely and utterly lost me. I never said that the universe was nothing. I said the universe was everything.

Originally posted by EMINEM

"If we imagine?" Let me state this one more time; the universe has a beginning! It’s been scientifically, mathematically, philosophically, and empirically confirmed. Refusing to believe the universe has a beginning is like refusing to believe the earth is round.

I think you are wrong. In fact I think it is nonsense - the origins of the universe are not settled. How can you claim such a thing? There are so many things we don't know about the universe and that include what exactly happened 15 billion years ago. Cosmologists are constantly coming up with new theories, I believe the latest explanation for the big bang is something called ‘brane theory’.

In my next post I will deal with the argument that the universe could not be infinite in its past.

Originally posted by EMINEM

Why? (if you don’t mind my asking).

First of all I don't believe in the christian god. So I believe that when jesus was claiming that he is the son of god etc. he is saying something false. Then I ask myself why would a person go around claiming he was the son of god etc. Either he was sane or insane. If he was insane then that would explain his claims. If he was sane then he must have had a reason to go around saying that he was son of god. The only reason I can think of is that he wanted status and influence by tricking the superstitious (it could of course also be that he was both a madman and a fraud).

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:11 am

The probable parentage of Jesus and his motives are not the subject of this thread. -I just wanted to stop this before any questions and answers took this subject away from its original purpose. These are highly emotive subjects which have heated debate to the point of topic closing in the past. Let's start on course, please.