Can logical thinking lead towards faith?

[Nick Soapdish]

However, the infinite size of the universe Spinks referred to wasn't in dimensions but in size. Why couldn't it be infinite with an infinite amount of quanta? The argument doesn't address that, and either my lack of knowledge on the issue has misled me, or you have misunderstood Spinks' argument on infinite space .

Actually the Loop Quantum Gravity discussion was unrelated to Spinks posts on boundless space. But, to answer your question, I believe that the distance between two objects will always be finite. I can't imagine what it would mean to say that two objects were infinitely far apart.

 

[No*s]

Actually the Loop Quantum Gravity discussion was unrelated to Spinks posts on boundless space. But, to answer your question, I believe that the distance between two objects will always be finite. I can't imagine what it would mean to say that two objects were infinitely far apart.

OK, then I was making a false connection. My apologies.

In the view Spinks proffered, the distance between two points would always be finite as well. It's just that space, and the objects contained therein, is infinite, and therefore, the number of object pairs with a finite distance between them would be infinite.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

In the view Spinks proffered, the distance between two points would always be finite as well. It's just that space, and the objects contained therein, is infinite, and therefore, the number of object pairs with a finite distance between them would be infinite.

Ok, I missed that. So is his assertion that there is an infinite amount of mass and energy in the Universe? If so, I would have to disagree with his assertion.

 

[No*s]

Ok, I missed that. So is his assertion that there is an infinite amount of mass and energy in the Universe? If so, I would have to disagree with his assertion.

Not from my understanding, just space. I could be misunderstanding. This isn't my field.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

The idea of "infinity" as is being debated in this instance is known in logic and philosophy as the Dichotomy Paradox, as set forth by Zeno of Elia. If you want to see the paradox explained, visit Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes .

I am familiar with Zeno's paradoxes. However, Zeno was not dealing with the discrete geometries used in Loop Quantum Gravity. My point is that we should not assume continuous geometries are the only possible models for the space dimension.

Your statement that "The only reasonable explanation is that the structure in our Universe was ultimately created by something that is not structured and not mechanical." is incredibly weak, as it has been pointed out throughout this thread that it begs the question. Most importantly, your assumption that it is the "only reasonable explanation" is plainly self serving, in the context of this debate.

I would offer for you to take the counter position. Would you believe that the Universe was ultimately created by something mechanical and structured? Can you explain why I should consider this to be a reasonable alternative?

Also, I am curious as to why you find my motive for posting the above argument as more important than the strength of the argument itself.

 

[TranceAm]

I have a feeling that it is not the validity of logic you disagree with in Theology, but rather the assumptions it is based upon.

What is the difference between a "Theory that can change the moment more info is available to update the theory or make a new theory" and an "Assumption" when the fundation for both is located in the middle of the twilight zone?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

What is the difference between a "Theory that can change the moment more info is available to update the theory or make a new theory" and an "Assumption" when the fundation for both is located in the middle of the twilight zone?

Yikes.. I am going to have to contemplate this one over the next few days in Mt. Rainier.

 

[hakouma]

hello everybody
You know, During long time nonbeliver were thinking that beliver are stupid. even if you will give argument they will not change thier idea. The solution is keeping the heart looking for the faith. I agree with you: the logical argument can guide it. I say just guide, but the heart must be predisposed to receive the message of GOD
Bye

 

[Halcyon]

Hmmm, haven't seen his thread before, and it looks like its probably deviated from the original question by now, but i'll just dump my thoughts and run .

I used to be atheist, but i couldn't comprehend the creation of the universe without something conscious, so i converted myself to theism.

 

[Athosxc]

Both Cordoba and TranceAm hint (intentionally or non) at what I would believe the truth to be: That the earth does have a creator, and that the universe is therefore not-eternal. The concept that Christians hold to is that the creator (God) created the universe "ex-nihilo" (I think I spelled that right) or "out of nothing". That is why he is the creator, and not the re-shaper. Physical laws such as E=MC2, gravity, etc. exist because that is the context when which the creator formed his creation. Assuming that the universe was created, it cannot be eternal. Whether it's 5,000 or 5 million years old matters little, it still had a beginning. If we believe the biblical account of the creation, then it only follows suit to say we will believe the biblical account for the end of this creation. Once again, the universe cannot be eternal. It has a beginning and end. The creator has no beginning, and no end. The creator has the power to create by intelligent design the creation for his purposes. Can we understand not having a beginning? No. A creation cannot fathom its creator completely. We do not completely understand the way our planet operates, or how nature functions in its entirety. It makes no sense to assume we can completely answer our own questions about the creator. Just hoping to address that little part of the topic that had been looked over. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Both Cordoba and TranceAm hint (intentionally or non) at what I would believe the truth to be: That the earth does have a creator, and that the universe is therefore not-eternal. The concept that Christians hold to is that the creator (God) created the universe "ex-nihilo" (I think I spelled that right) or "out of nothing". That is why he is the creator, and not the re-shaper. Physical laws such as E=MC2, gravity, etc. exist because that is the context when which the creator formed his creation. Assuming that the universe was created, it cannot be eternal. Whether it's 5,000 or 5 million years old matters little, it still had a beginning. If we believe the biblical account of the creation, then it only follows suit to say we will believe the biblical account for the end of this creation. Once again, the universe cannot be eternal. It has a beginning and end. The creator has no beginning, and no end. The creator has the power to create by intelligent design the creation for his purposes. Can we understand not having a beginning? No. A creation cannot fathom its creator completely. We do not completely understand the way our planet operates, or how nature functions in its entirety. It makes no sense to assume we can completely answer our own questions about the creator. Just hoping to address that little part of the topic that had been looked over. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute!

The second law of thermodynamics rules the cosmos with an iron fist. However, if the universe has boundaries, then the big bang will occur indefinately unless some divine power destroys the elements. While we cannot say with physics that the universe will last forever, from a human perspective, it may as well be eternity unless an outside force intervenes.

EDIT: However, if the universe does not have boundaries, IMHO it would be more convincing to say that eventually everything will breakdown and decay into nothingness, but that would take a freaking long time too.

 

[michel]

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?

If I may, I'll go back to the thread title itself, 'Can logical thinking lead towards Faith ?'

My answer is 'yes' - and what is more, I can explain why - from personal experience.
I know that I have described my religious upbringing - in as few words as possible, My father was an excommunicated Catholic, my Mother 'high Church of England' - who could not go to a Church of her faith during the first twelve years of their marriage. My first school was a convent, and as 'tots' I remember being told that we would all have to walk around the courtyard of the Convent holding a candle, repeating 'Hail Marys'.

I then came to England, went to a boarding school, where the Headmaster took 'morning prayers'. Everyday, at eight o'clock, he would stagger up the aisle - drunk.

When I left that school (Underawful circumstances), I went into 'shut down mode'; I tried to kill myself for fear of being visited by a guy who had tried to kill me.

I was by now Sixteen years old, no 'Religious affiliation', and badly in need of 'help'. I started thinking about God, read a few books on Christianity and on Bhuddism (Which was the 'in' faith of the 'hippy sixties', and sat down and thought the subject through.
O.K there HAD to be a God; conversations with science orientated friends who were pretty much atheists, or uninterested were of no help. Logic told me that however far back you go - ie the Big Bang, there still had to be chemicals atoms, minerals to combine to make the bib bang happen. Who put those there ? God - it had to be. It had to be someone or something 'supernatural' to have created nature.

O.K so now we have a God. Religion told me that God was a very loving and forgiving God. How could he be so, if (As an example which I know is full of flaws but will do, for sake of argument)he allowed a spirit to be born into human form (Say Prince Charles) - silver spoon, someone at his beck and call - future with no money worries mapped out for him etc etc, whilst at the same time another spirit was born in Ethiopia, from a haggard malnourished mother, the baby covered in flies, no future - little chance of actually 'making it through' his first years. There was no conceivable way, in my mind that I could equate those two events with a loving forgiving God. Especially as, if upon death, we had to meet him, have our behaviour during life examined, and either sent to sit on a cloud with a harp or sent to the fires of hell.

Ah, but bhuddism talked of reincarnation. If reincarnation was introduced into the 'game plan', then the Ethiopian child and Prince Charles's differences were more palatable. They were so because each had a lesson to learn in their particular incarnation; possibly Prince Charles not to abuse his position of a member of the Royal family, and his easy life (Well, that is debatable - but this is a theoretical example anyway) whilst the little Ethiopian child might have had to learn the lesson of Misery, of pain, hunger etc.

So yes, religious beliefs can evolve from logic (unless someone considers my logic as flawed).

 

[Melody]

Yes, logical thinking can lead towards faith. Mine did. No matter which way I turn, I come down to "nothing comes from a vacuum." Even if you believe that a bunch of gas and dust went boom and created the universe, where did the gas and dust come from.

God is, was and will ever be. He did not need a creator because He is the Creator.

 

[andyjamal]

Although the existence of God makes sense to me, I can not "prove" it to anyone using logic, even if the logic is true. If this could be done, faith would have little meaning in a religious context. If we are seeking God we must reach out with our hearts; if we are not seeking God, we will probably not find Him (He may choose to make Himself known to us). Logical thinking can lead one to faith though. Example: I have been told there is a God. I accept this as truth. I pray to God. God answers my prayers. I continue to pray; this makes me feel good. When I don't pray for a time, I don't feel as good. I have faith that God affects my well-being. This faith is based on experience, which is logical. This may not "prove" anything to anyone else, but my faith is based on logic, nonetheless.

 

[Pilgrim of this Reality]

Just an idea to throw into the mix: for fundamental creationists Genesis is the account of God's act of creation. He created using his voice. According to the string theory (yes a theory but still worth considering) strings create everything and they are always vibrating. Vibrating = "sound" (of a sort) therefore they could be residual effects from God's "voice"

 

[Nick Soapdish]

As usual, I hate to spoil the fun here. But since my initial post as in a reply stated above hinted to something it didn't hint to, I think I have to do a little better job.
If you are comfy in your faith, don't read this post. It could put doubt where until now was a firm conviction and a strong stance.

Logic: Based on boolean Algebra.

"AND" = && => If both of the components are true, the complete statement returns as true.
"OR" = || => If one of the components is true, the complete statement returns as true.

TRUE = 1
FALSE = 0

0 && 0 = 0 0 || 0 = 0
1 && 0 = 0 1 || 0 = 1
0 && 1 = 0 0 || 1 = 1
1 && 1 = 1 1 || 1 = 1

The statement "An apple that falls from a tree falls because of the effects of gravity towards Earth." can be split in several parts.

Part 1 would be "An apple that falls from a tree"
Part 2 would be "falls because of the effects of gravity towards Earth"

Only if both parts are true, exactly that happens what the statement tries to describe.
The tree that holds the apple up on a certain height, keeps gravity from accelerating the apple towards earth. And the moment the tree connection to the apple breaks, gravity accelerates the apple towards Earth until it hits the Earth.

So Part1 has to be true and Part2 has to be true before the whole statement becomes true.

Lets apply this logic to the thread (As I did before.) in an shortened example

The statement:
(
"God is true because noone can prove the counterexample"
&&
"I believe in god"
&&
"Millions of people believe in god, they can't all be wrong"
&&
God
)

Equals to: (1 && 1 && 1 && 1) = (1) = TRUE ( :tsk: Don't cheer yet.)

Now, if we put only what we can "prove" in a logic statement, we can at the maximum come as far as: 1 && God = ? Since we don't know whether God = TRUE or FALSE
and depending whether God is TRUE or FALSE the statement becomes TRUE or FALSE.

X = God or any other "thing/idea" people can believe in (But not prove!!!) and SET to TRUE to have at least something to work with.
I guess you could call this Faith upfront that it will become TRUE.
But then again, in every horse race, there is a horse that wins, in this case either TRUE or FALSE wins.

As analog, You can build a house of cards, but it won't be the same as a brick building since it has all the inherited characteristics of a house of cards.. Pull one on the bottom and the whole building goes.

So Sorry people unless we introduce in the boolean logic a "maybe" type expression that we just initiate by definition as TRUE... This is deceiving ourselves.

You can find ANY faith you want, In ANYTHING that way.
Only by putting the right statements in the boolean expression you want to evaluate, and leaving the "uncomfy" things out of that expression.
(Do you think it is a wonder why religious discussions always are a loosing game for the believers when confronted with logic?)

Maybe is not by definition "TRUE". Not even if you bet your life on it.

Even if in total over all recorded history a trillion people believe(d) it to be true. It still can be untrue.

Reality is what is, not what people want to interprete about what they perceive to be the truth.

Last short example to keep the mind sharp: "Faith will overcome the logic of this post."
You do the splitting in parts and setting their boolean values to make you able to go to sleep tonight. (Don't allow me to spoil your sleep by setting "faith" equal to X. )

God = (1 && (0 || 1 || 0) && (1 && 1 && 0)) || 0 || ((1 || 0 || 1) && 1 && ( 0 || 1 ))

 

[Athosxc]

Whoa people, we're getting into the realms of proof here. May I remind everyone that "Faith is the substance of things of hoped for, the evidence of things unseen". Even a born-again, bible-believing Christian such as myself cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. If we could, we wouldn't NEED faith. please stay on topic. Can logical thinking lead to Faith? Yes. In God? Yes. Which one, the God of christians, or some other god? Well, I say if you're going to believe in one, believe in the one who's alive and not dead and buried for centuries now. Believe in the one with mondo amounts of historical documents saying He is who He said He is and did what He claimed. but that's just mho. BUT, faith means you must accept the maybe, and trust that God will not let you down. That's the very essence of faith.

 

[linwood]

Well, I say if you're going to believe in one, believe in the one who's alive and not dead and buried for centuries now. Believe in the one with mondo amounts of historical documents saying He is who He said He is and did what He claimed.

Horus?

 

[roli]

<< 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.

Who is we and why are you led to believe these findings
We don't know anything for certain, they have only with their limited knowledge assumed it to be 14 billion ,how many times has that changed. How do they know for certain
Like the theory of evolution taught in the school classes, the kids grow up believing it to be true with no knowledge, therefore it is true

 

[Melody]

So the question becomes: Does anyone else, who's life isn't guided by <blind> "faith" who uses logic, but can't get to the same conclusion, have to accept the "maybe's" of people in power that do have "faith" as defined in your answer?

TranceAm,
My logic based on known science leads me to faith. Show me one instance in science where something is created from nothing.

You say it's "blind" faith. I say it's a logical conclusion. I believe everything has to have a creator....except "The Creator".

If you don't believe in a Creator, then where did everything come from? Your "dunno" has as much proof behind it as my belief and no more logic.