Can logical thinking lead towards faith? (Creator, creation, atheist, eternal)

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by linwood

You guys are starting to freak me out.

Thats the second time in as many days I`ve seen a thiest use the foundation of the Big Bang to support ID.

It is fairly common that Christians appropiate science for God - probably more common that God surplanting science.

The problem No*s is that we just don`t know if the universe had a beginning or if it will have an end.

Our current sciences says there is an end to our universe and that there is a scientific cause of the Big Bang.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

I did not ask to be 'shown the need for a Creator'. I asked for evidence for 'something that exists outside of time'. Please provide it.

Keep in mind that the claim "According to Relativity, nothing could have existed before the big bang, therefore God must defy Relativity" is not evidence, it is an ad-hoc hypothesis.

Well, time is a part of the universe, if I am not mistaken. If there is a creator, then He exists outside the universe -- that includes time. By definition He is outside of time, unless you think time isn't a part of the universe.

God defying relativity isn't a problem. What is relativity but an explanation of how we see the universe. It is a "law" insofar as it adequately explains what we see. This, in its turn, means it is a human construct to explain what we see. As such, it isn't some universal truth, but a nice fact we can use to create technology and make sense of what we see.

Could you tell me why God would be subject to a human interpretation of the world?

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Whether you relent on it or not, the universe has always existed.

How do you know this? It sort of begs the question to me. How do you know the universe has always existed? Because there was never a time when the universe didn't exist.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Yes, but so what? So the universe has a beginning and an end. Randomly occurring things can have a beginning and an end, just as causal things can. Furthermore, supposing the universe was caused by something, there is no way to distinguish between a supernatural cause and an uknown cause.

Have you ever seen a randomly occuring thing that doesn't have a cause? I haven't. Further, if you cite something, do you say it has no cause simply because you haven't observed it? If not either of those, why?

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

This is irrelevant. Things can occur randomly, and this is true whether things can occur randomly some of the time or all of the time. In the case of the big bang, where we are dealing with an extremely dense, high energy universe, and all of our known physics completely fails us, a comparison to the strange world of QM is far more educational than a comparison to you opening the fridge and getting a glass of OJ.

Mmm....OJ....

I think it does matter. There is "random" because it has no cause, and there is "random" that has a cause we don't understand and only appears that way. Why should I abandon a principle that is universal everywhere but where you assert? Could the randomness you assert mean that we simply don't understand it?

Now, here's a question: at super-high densities, where "physics changes," would it not be more accurate to say that our models change? If you're proposing fundamental reality changes when we hit those densities, or we hit such small levels, you are making a strong claim indeed. It's much more sensible that models that the human mind uses to wrap around things simply have flaws and limitations.

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Both are unproven, but unlike the latter, the former is well evidenced. If you disagree that the universe has always existed, please tell me:

1) When did the universe not exist?
2) For how long?

No, it does not logically follow that because the universe is finite, it must have a Creator. A finite universe could have been caused by some poorly understood natural phenomenon (i.e. string or M theory); or it could be finite and come from an outer, infinite universe; or it could be finite and have 5,672 Creators. Of course, if we are allowed to believe things for which there is no evidence, all of the above are equally 'reasonable conclusions'.

So, you are wanting to test the beginning of the universe (and time with it), by asking for a time when it did not exist? All our inquiries for testing remain stuck inside the box. Please understand that as nonsensical as that sounds to you, it sounds equally nonsensical to me to say that nature was caused by "some poorly understood natural phenomenon." Unless we believe "nature" to be something separate from the universe. Have you ever observed a natural phenomena outside of natural universe? I haven't.

I don't know much about M theory or string theory, but from what I've heard on string theory, there are people who oppose it, because it's not testable, and thereby, not science. Can you propose a test that can verify either one? Has such a test been done? If not, why is that proposal inherently more logical than God?

If we want to be purely logical, the only honest answer is that we don't have a clue.

EDIT:

I would have posted this sooner, but I received a phone call, in which I have been talking all night about important matters like theology (good Greek words, the Church, creation, etc.) and comic books .

[No*s]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

True..
We won't know what time the clock will show when the universe ends.
So if we make that time t=x And we don't know what happend at t=0 then infinity is the time between but not including those 2 points. Yes?

There is an infinity between those points, but that infinity is made of finite numbers. If it ends in a hundred billion years, it's still a finite amount. We can only move from "infinite possiblities" to "infinite" if we assert that the universe has no end.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

If you would have read my first post in this thread, then you would know what I am willing to assert. And what not.

What I see is that you assert the possibility of the universe coming into existence with a deity, but at the same time, you declared the view with a Creator to be based on "flawed premises." That, in effect, disallows consideration of such a thing. That's what sparked the comment .

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Infinitly large, indeed.. For at least as large as the shock wave of the big bang has gone since t=0...
Might take some time for the shockwave of another (Not our!) big bang to reach us.
However, it would take away the "exclusivnes".

I'm not sure I'm reading you right. I have trouble imagining the BB with a shock wave.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

>Is it unimportant to you? You seem to have put great effort into this post, which indicates that you place some value in the subject.

Oh I love infinity. And It basically touches me everywhere?

>All that tells me that there's an emotional investment in the philosophy, and frankly, it would normally have as much trouble giving up its philosophy as a theist.
Judge not, that ye be not judged...

We are both in the same boat, then . We have invested time and emotion into our beliefs. They aren't easy to give up.

[TranceAm]

[quote=No*s]
>There is an infinity between those points, but that infinity is made of finite numbers. If it ends in a hundred billion years, it's still a finite amount. We can only move from "infinite possiblities" to "infinite" if we assert that the universe has no end.

It doesn't matter whether in hignsight (If there is such a viewpoint!) the time between those points becomes finite. Since we are between those points (and we can assume easely that when the universe ends no human will be around to look at the clock, since if the universe ends that will includes humans and their clocks.) To us it is infinity.

>What I see is that you assert the possibility of the universe coming into existence with a deity, but at the same time, you declared the view with a Creator to be based on "flawed premises." That, in effect, disallows consideration of such a thing. That's what sparked the comment .

Ok, lets say it like this.. There are many questions that we don't (As of yet.)have an answer for.
We have found in our creativity an answer that fits all those questions like a glove.
If we do this, it enables us to leave the question behind, and never search for an answer that accurately answers the question. Unless we stumble by accident over the answer.
I have stated:
[
So the question "Should the universe have a Creator?" should really be "Can the universe have a creator?"
To wich the answer without question must be, even by atheists a "Yes, definitly".
The question "Does the universe have a Creator?" however must be answered with a truthfull "We don't know" inspite of what a personal believe might gain us "
Anything else is selfdelusional.

The point then becomes for every entity with awareness "Do I need universe to have a creator as explanation or should according to me the universe have a creator as explanation?" To which every individual can answer to him/her self according to his own concious and/or unconciousness."
]

Furthermore the "Flawed premises" comes from an answer you gave in connection with "Logic" that was modified by me. Let me recal for you:

[quote=No*s]

>If we supply the right premises, then the Creator is unavoidable.

If we supply the wrong premises, then the Creator is unavoidable too.

But does the rightness or the wrongness of the premisis state anything about the/a creator being true?

<Again> I notice you put writing in my name. I don't think that discussion techniques will do any good in discussing how people think about these matters.

>I'm not sure I'm reading you right. I have trouble imagining the BB with a shock wave.

Analog.. Throw a rock in the middle of a big pool of big water.. The water where the rock landed in the pool can allready be still while the first wave that basically signals the event has happened somewhere in the past is still travelling in the water.
Now if the event of BB happend emitting any kind of light.. and light speed in vacuum is defined together with an age of the universe since the BB.. You do the calculating for how far that shock wave is from the center of the universe...

>We are both in the same boat, then .

Even better, We are on the same space ship...

>We have invested time and emotion into our beliefs. They aren't easy to give up.

Oh.. I beg to differ here..
See.. I don't have a belief that I can give up
Afterall, not having a belief, means that you don't have a belief.. That in itself isn't a belief.
(Analog: Poverty isn't a thing you can give up. It is the lack of money. In this case If every dollar bill represents what one believes in, then you would be Rich, and I would be Poor. Now, can I give up "poverty"? I don't think so, but look at the miracle that happens when burn your money? )

However, not having a belief, doesn't mean that one has to be close minded to claims what others think to be true.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by No*s

If we want to be purely logical, the only honest answer is that we don't have a clue.

Unless you want me to, I see no need to respond to the rest of your post, No*s. On this point we have an accord: rather than leading to faith, logical thinking on this issue leads to agnosticism. This is pretty much what I have been saying, and since we agree, there's no need to debate it further.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Mr_Spinkles

Unless you want me to, I see no need to respond to the rest of your post, No*s. On this point we have an accord: rather than leading to faith, logical thinking on this issue leads to agnosticism. This is pretty much what I have been saying, and since we agree, there's no need to debate it further.

I think you're right there. I only meant to demonstrate with my posts that all the systems are logical, but with varying degrees of proven premises . We have agreement on the matter.

It was a nice discussion.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

It doesn't matter whether in hignsight (If there is such a viewpoint!) the time between those points becomes finite. Since we are between those points (and we can assume easely that when the universe ends no human will be around to look at the clock, since if the universe ends that will includes humans and their clocks.) To us it is infinity.

No, it is not infinity. It is perceived as infinity. There is a difference. That's the same as saying that, when I die, the universe ceases to exist (assuming I were to believe that I did not survive death in some form). It just means that I stopped perceiving.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Ok, lets say it like this.. There are many questions that we don't (As of yet.)have an answer for.
We have found in our creativity an answer that fits all those questions like a glove.
If we do this, it enables us to leave the question behind, and never search for an answer that accurately answers the question. Unless we stumble by accident over the answer.
I have stated:
[
So the question "Should the universe have a Creator?" should really be "Can the universe have a creator?"
To wich the answer without question must be, even by atheists a "Yes, definitly".
The question "Does the universe have a Creator?" however must be answered with a truthfull "We don't know" inspite of what a personal believe might gain us "
Anything else is selfdelusional.

No, anything else exceeds our certainty. It doesn't mean that we re deceiving ourselves. It just means we make an opnion. It may, or may not, be wrong. Obviously, we have different answers at this point *big grin*.

[quote=TranceAm]

Originally Posted by No*s

The point then becomes for every entity with awareness "Do I need universe to have a creator as explanation or should according to me the universe have a creator as explanation?" To which every individual can answer to him/her self according to his own concious and/or unconciousness."

Furthermore the "Flawed premises" comes from an answer you gave in connection with "Logic" that was modified by me. Let me recal for you:

Originally Posted by No*s

>If we supply the right premises, then the Creator is unavoidable.

If we supply the wrong premises, then the Creator is unavoidable too.

But does the rightness or the wrongness of the premisis state anything about the/a creator being true?

I think it does. However, it's whether we can accurately discern with logic alone which is right and wrong :).

[quote=TranceAm]

Originally Posted by No*s

<Again> I notice you put writing in my name. I don't think that discussion techniques will do any good in discussing how people think about these matters.

If I'm putting things in your mouth, know that I do not intend to. Often, your posts are difficult to understand, so I do the best I can in response to them. Heck, the second clause of that sentance makes very little sense to me, unless you refer to my arguments on perception/interpretation.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Analog.. Throw a rock in the middle of a big pool of big water.. The water where the rock landed in the pool can allready be still while the first wave that basically signals the event has happened somewhere in the past is still travelling in the water.
Now if the event of BB happend emitting any kind of light.. and light speed in vacuum is defined together with an age of the universe since the BB.. You do the calculating for how far that shock wave is from the center of the universe...

That is completely foreign to my understanding of the BB. Spinks can correct me, but energy was initially concentrated all together. As space expanded, it spread the energy out, and it gathered in clumps. It is still expanding, and things are still moving further apart. In my understanding, there can't be anything like what you describe.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Even better, We are on the same space ship... ;)

Yes, indeed. Spaceship Earth :D.

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Oh.. I beg to differ here..
See.. I don't have a belief that I can give up
Afterall, not having a belief, means that you don't have a belief.. That in itself isn't a belief.
(Analog: Poverty isn't a thing you can give up. It is the lack of money. In this case If every dollar bill represents what one believes in, then you would be Rich, and I would be Poor. Now, can I give up "poverty"? I don't think so, but look at the miracle that happens when burn your money? ;))

However, not having a belief, doesn't mean that one has to be close minded to claims what others think to be true.

Actually, I think the analogy is flawed. We all have a metaphysical system that we use to interpret the universe. If this system doesn't involve belief in a God, it still exists, and it still has a nature. We can't operate without these, and the more time we invest in them, the harder it is to give up.

For instance, you definately look at the world a certain way, and this doesn't require a deity. However, if you changed how you looked at deity, it could change how you look at everything else.

I'm sorry for being unclear. I wasn't asserting that non-belief in deity was inherently a belief (it can be, though). I was asserting we all have a way of looking at the world, and we all invest in it emotionally.

[TranceAm]

[quote=No*s]
>No, it is not infinity. It is perceived as infinity. There is a difference.

ONLY if the last moment would exist I would give you that point.. However, it doesn't.. Time will near that last moment but never reach it.. I think that is infinity.

>No, anything else exceeds our certainty. It doesn't mean that we re deceiving ourselves. It just means we make an opnion. It may, or may not, be wrong. Obviously, we have different answers at this point *big grin*.

>I think it does. However, it's whether we can accurately discern with logic alone which is right and wrong .
True, point for you.

>If I'm putting things in your mouth, know that I do not intend to.

Noted and you get credit for it.

>Often, your posts are difficult to understand, so I do the best I can in response to them.

I understand that one to and I thank you for putting enough interest in them to put in that effort.

>That is completely foreign to my understanding of the BB. Spinks can correct me, but energy was initially concentrated all together. As space expanded, it spread the energy out, and it gathered in clumps. It is still expanding, and things are still moving further apart. In my understanding, there can't be anything like what you describe.

Fair, but do you then have an answer to the simple question: If the big bang had a light flash, how far would that light by now have travelled?

>Yes, indeed. Spaceship Earth .

>Actually, I think the analogy is flawed. We all have a metaphysical system that we use to interpret the universe. If this system doesn't involve belief in a God, it still exists, and it still has a nature. We can't operate without these, and the more time we invest in them, the harder it is to give up.

Hmmm, that is not how I mean it. You do see that if a system involves God/Creator and Rituals depending on the religion they are based on/in, there is by definition more investment to be lost, then when that time was never used that way to start with... This sounds harder and harsher then meant. However it makes clear why IMO people run "out of time" so to speak when dogma doesn't help anymore to defend their point... And I offered C. an agreement which was very reasonable as every open minded person will admitt.

>I'm sorry for being unclear. I wasn't asserting that non-belief in deity was inherently a belief (it can be, though). I was asserting we all have a way of looking at the world, and we all invest in it emotionally.

I see what you mean, The non-belief would become dogma and by that treat would become a belief. And then close mindedness would protect the investment from loosing its personal value. We do agree on a lot of points.