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

[Cordoba]

Greetings to all:

Why should everything around us be made, have a cause or builder, whereas our universe just happens to exist, as some people claim, just by coincidence?

There are a number of logical arguments for and against the existence of a Creator. This article follows reason and logic to answer the question "Does God exist?":
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason01.htm

Logically-speaking, should the universe have a Creator?
What do you think?

[Dr. Nosophoros]

Well, what do modern theists base their theories for creation on?- an old book, a lack of a truly exhaustive scientific explanation, or a combination of both or more? Science is magic until it is proven to be science- ask those just 400- 300 years ago that believed demons or witches caused sickness or destroyed crops now proven to be fools, it's really no different when you look at it.

[Majikthise]

It's just the watch again.(Yawn).

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Cordoba

Greetings to all:

Why should everything around us be made, have a cause or builder, whereas our universe just happens to exist, as some people claim, just by coincidence?

There are a number of logical arguments for and against the existence of a Creator. This article follows reason and logic to answer the question "Does God exist?":
http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/reason01.htm

Logically-speaking, should the universe have a Creator?
What do you think?

TranceAm has already given a nice answer to this and would receive frubals from me, but I've already given him/her frubals today.

Logic is ruled by presuppositions, and when we look at the world, we will interpret the it on the basis of those presuppositions. In this case, both answers are perfectly logical.

[Cordoba]

The logic of Cause and Effect is straight-forward and does not need to be complicated.
Each thing/event/creature has a cause which made it come into existence.

The one exception to this rule is the Creator Himself, as He is Eternal, meaning He is The First Cause, The Necessary Being.

<< If it was created from something, there is more of that something unless there was only the creator and he made it using as recource the "material" >>

Could the universe have been created out of nothing?

Creating from "something" only means a transformation of raw materials from one state to another. Whereas creating "without raw materials" is what real creation is all about, which only the Eternal Creator can do.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by TranceAm

Thank you for those credits. After rereading my piece I noticed there was a part missing that should be included.

I wrote:
"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."

This contained an error "Do I need universe.." But the written statement as was gave a new insight. It needed to be "Do I need the universe...."

The questions that arose by the mistake were:
Do I need the universe as an reason for the existance of a creator?
What other reason can I come up with for the existance of a creator?

For the life of me, I can't come up with any other reason then creating the universe.

I haven't got much time, so I have to make this brief .

The logical arguments for the existence of God are:

1). Creation (I follow the thread's starter in seeing the universe fashioned from nothing)
2). C.S. Lewis' moral argument
3). Divine revelation
4). The ontological argument (which I consider bull)
5). Divine revelation

Outside of these, we are hard-pressed to make a logical argument. I discard 4 altogether.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Cordoba

The logic of Cause and Effect is straight-forward and does not need to be complicated.
Each thing/event/creature has a cause which made it come into existence.

The one exception to this rule is the Creator Himself, as He is Eternal, meaning He is The First Cause, The Necessary Being.

That's the problem with this being an airtight argument. Why do you assume the universe cannot be eternal? We cannot prove it either way. I, for one, believe that it cannot be, and thus, a creator, but logic hits a wall before I can conclusively prove it.

[Cordoba]

<< Why do you assume the universe cannot be eternal? >>

That used to be the assumption made till around 100 years ago.
Today we know that the universe is around 14 billion years old, which means it's not eternal.

[Irenicas]

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Irenicas

Unless of course, that we follow the bigbang/bigcrunch theory - the universe expands until a certain point where upon it is pulled back together by gravitational forces, compressing it once more, before extreme heat and pressure caused by the implosion cause it to once more explode. This cycle, I'm sure you would agree, could be eternal.

PS. Hey guys, good to be back!

Welcome back - actually the current theory, brought about by advances in telescopic study, says that the universe only expands and that when it is suffiently dispersed, it will die from a tempurature of 0 kelvin