RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:12:02 PM)

Ah, but the uncaused first cause requires time to occur within, no? And since time had a beginning...



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:16:44 PM)

quote:

However, since events as we understand them can only take place within the context of space-time, we must accept that there was a first event.

No, this is an assumed presupposition, not a rebuttal of causality.


Actually it's an observation of reality - time passes as the events of causality unfold. To state that events can occur without the passage of time is the 'assumed presupposition' on your part.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:17:31 PM)

quote:

Ah, but the uncaused first cause requires time to occur within, no?
Not at all! God is transcendent to His created time. He requires nothing to exist - I AM THAT I AM!



GHitch -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:17:58 PM)

Great book references in the OP.

Nothing is more logical than to believe in God.
Rom. 1 clearly states this:
quote:

Rom 1:19 because what may be known about Him is plain to their inmost consciousness; for He Himself has made it plain to them.
For, from the very creation of the world, His invisible perfections--namely His eternal power and divine nature--have been rendered intelligible and clearly visible by His works, so that these men are without excuse.
IOW, we are endowed with the faculty of reason which, through the design seen or inferred in nature, we may come to believe.
I like Godel's ontological proof of the existence of God. (an extension of St. Anselm's argument) here
There are many other logical means to getting to a belief in God.



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:18:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Ah, but the uncaused first cause requires time to occur within, no?
Not at all! God is transcendent to His created time. He requires nothing to exist - I AM THAT I AM!

That's a matter of faith rather than a logical argument though....



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 1:22:01 PM)

quote:

Actually it's an observation of reality.
Correct - but we do not have to observe reality in order to understand an event outside the matter-space-time continuum. Genesis 1 is classic proof of that!

quote:

To state that events can occur without the passage of time is the 'assumed presupposition' on your part.
Did God exist before He said "Let there be light"? Do you assume that God is but an event?

quote:

That's a matter of faith rather than a logical argument though....
Faith based on reason and logic! [;)]



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 2:30:30 PM)

OK, let me see if I can clear up this little confusion of logic and faith. Two simple starting premises:

1) No event can occur without the passage of time; (a human observation!!)
2) God acted so to create time (act of creation is an event, not God's actual existence)

However, I find it impossible to draw a logical conclusion from these as the second premise appears to contradict the first.

I can however, as a matter of *faith* when faced with this illogic, insist that God created time by some humanly unknowable method which of course does not involve our notions of time and causality.

This is all I have been saying, albeit perhaps not too clearly.



rcjames -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 4:33:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamSpick

quote:

If there is a creation then there had to be a creator, just as there had to be a builder to build a house.

But if the creation is space-time itself, how can we speak of a causal agent of any kind? Also, what makes you so convinced that the universe is a "creation" at all?


Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/12/2008 4:49:24 PM)

quote:

1) No event can occur without the passage of time; (a human observation!!)
Did God create light instantaneously or over some undefinable period of time passage? Were there humans around to observe said event? My Bible is quite clear on the issue!

quote:

2) God acted so to create time (act of creation is an event, not God's actual existence)
What or who would have the ability, knowledge, power, and understanding to create time? Only an eternal, timeless, transcendent uncaused First Cause of time!

quote:

However, I find it impossible to draw a logical conclusion from these as the second premise appears to contradict the first.
I see no contradiction at all; indeed God is the only logical explanation for the origin of time and reality itself.

quote:

I can however, as a matter of *faith* when faced with this illogic, insist that God created time by some humanly unknowable method which of course does not involve our notions of time and causality.
I have never claimed that the "method" of divine creation is humanly knowable. Further, I am not aware that the KCA makes that claim either. In fact, if finite humans were to know the method of creation of an infinite universe, then it would no longer be infinite, would it!



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 8:31:50 AM)

quote:

1) No event can occur without the passage of time; (a human observation!!)

Did God create light instantaneously or over some undefinable period of time passage? Were there humans around to observe said event? My Bible is quite clear on the issue!

The point is that humans have never witnessed any event take place without the passage of time, which of course is the basis of the premise. To break the premise you need to demonstrate a humanly observable yet atemporal event, which is impossible.

quote:

) God acted so to create time (act of creation is an event, not God's actual existence)

What or who would have the ability, knowledge, power, and understanding to create time? Only an eternal, timeless, transcendent uncaused First Cause of time!

Yet again you (just like my original premise) are making references to causes and events independantly of time which is a very clear contradiction of the first premise.

I think I can see the source of the confusion though. As I see it, the first uncaused event is not God or any act of God for God is atemporal and not subject to causality. Rather, the first uncaused event is the first moment of time. I like you have faith that the first moment of time was brought about by God (but unlike you I believe it was done in a way not involving causality and time et al) but let's be very clear: This is a matter of faith rather than a logically derived belief.


quote:

I can however, as a matter of *faith* when faced with this illogic, insist that God created time by some humanly unknowable method which of course does not involve our notions of time and causality.

I have never claimed that the "method" of divine creation is humanly knowable. Further, I am not aware that the KCA makes that claim either. In fact, if finite humans were to know the method of creation of an infinite universe, then it would no longer be infinite, would it!

No, no you miss the point. Question 2 of the KCA asks whether the finite universe was caused or uncaused. I have shown that it is illogical to say that it is caused since a cause is a temporal concept requring the passage of time *and* we are talking about the origin of the first moment of time. (well I am anyway)

On the other hand the alternative 'uncaused ' response seems unsatisfactory too. Basically I think question 2) of the KCA is of itself an illogical question.



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 8:37:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamSpick

quote:

If there is a creation then there had to be a creator, just as there had to be a builder to build a house.

But if the creation is space-time itself, how can we speak of a causal agent of any kind? Also, what makes you so convinced that the universe is a "creation" at all?

Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC

Oh, I quite agree, but nobody is actually suggesting that the universe is eternal. [:)]



earthless -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 8:43:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamSpick

quote:

If there is a creation then there had to be a creator, just as there had to be a builder to build a house.

But if the creation is space-time itself, how can we speak of a causal agent of any kind? Also, what makes you so convinced that the universe is a "creation" at all?


Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC


Especially when even the most ardent atheistic scientist knows the universe did not always exist and will not always exist.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:12:55 AM)

quote:

I think I can see the source of the confusion though. As I see it, the first uncaused event is not God or any act of God for God is atemporal and not subject to causality. Rather, the first uncaused event is the first moment of time. I like you have faith that the first moment of time was brought about by God in some humanly unknowable manner but let's be very clear: This is a matter of faith rather than a logically derived belief.
I'm not confused, are you? God is NOT an event, He is a cause. Or more precisely he is THE Cause. All events which begin in time have causes. God is transcendent to time and thus has no cause. The first moment of time most certainly was an event and thus requires a cause great enough to create time. This is emminently logical even if you fail to see it that way.

quote:

No, no you miss the point. Question 2 of the KCA asks whether the finite universe was caused or uncaused. I have shown that it is illogical to say that it is caused (in the humanly understood way) since a cause is a temporal concept requring the passage of time *and* we are talking about the origin of the first moment of time. (well I am anyway)
I'm not missing anything, Sam. If the universe had a beginning (is "finite") then it must be an effect requiring a cause. Just because we cannot observe a cause without passage of time does NOT mean that the universe was uncaused. It only means that had some finite human been there to observe, s/he would have seen "there was light" the instant God said "Let there be light". It is your finite assumption that presupposes that a cause must be a temporal concept, not God's.

quote:

On the other hand the alternative 'uncaused ' response seems unsatisfactory too. Basically I think question 2) of the KCA is of itself an illogical question.
So you find it more satisfactory to succumb to the infinite regression of causes causing causes? Most illogical, Sam!

quote:

Oh, I quite agree, but nobody is actually suggesting that the universe is eternal.
Oh, but there are lots of theories suggesting exactly that. The concept of a Universe that's not eternal is most distressing to naturalistic cosmologists because they clearly find KCA to be quite logical!



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:26:07 AM)

quote:

I'm not confused, are you? God is NOT an event, He is a cause.

I agree that God is not an event. Your confusion is in that you cannot see that a cause is a temporal concept and therefore the universe of space-time cannot have a cause. Simple as that.

And for those who think this infers a belief in an infinite universe, I suggest you read the thread and try to understand what is being discussed before wasting key strokes. My position is that the universe had a beginning but no cause.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:28:12 AM)

quote:

My position is that the universe had a beginning but no cause.
And that is illogical, SamSpick!



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:34:27 AM)

The problem is that logic is a phenomenon of this universe of space-time so it's quite logical for logic to fail at the first moment of time - the source of your confusion.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:35:58 AM)

This discussion has no further logical use. Have a great day in the Lord, Sam.



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 9:40:39 AM)

Agreed. You have a good one too!



hellohellohi -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/13/2008 5:28:47 PM)

I think what Sam and perhaps both of you were saying is that any cause must also be a chronological antecedent of its effect. If we take a beginning of everything as also the end of our ability to look backwards, then we notice that a necessary criteria for causality is not capable of being found. Does that mean it is not there? No, it would be most appropriate to say that we are not able to properly address the question. We may, if you like, establish that prior occurrences are necessary criteria for asking the question of whether or not, among them, a cause of a particular event can be foudn.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/14/2008 4:13:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellohellohi

I think what Sam and perhaps both of you were saying is that any cause must also be a chronological antecedent of its effect. If we take a beginning of everything as also the end of our ability to look backwards, then we notice that a necessary criteria for causality is not capable of being found. Does that mean it is not there? No, it would be most appropriate to say that we are not able to properly address the question. We may, if you like, establish that prior occurrences are necessary criteria for asking the question of whether or not, among them, a cause of a particular event can be foudn.


I think the issue should focus around the place of "logic" in the life of a faithful individual.


"And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." [I Cor 2:4-10]

"For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the NATURAL MAN receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because they are spiritually discerned." [I Cor 2:11-14]

We accept BY FAITH and leave the logic to those who have not developed faith.

Through faith I find God the most logical answer to almost everything. BUT, without that foundation of faith, which is based on the promises of a God which cannot be proved, logic will only make one frustrated. You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example. ANYTHING man can come up with is pure speculation, some of it based upon pretty good thinking, but pretty good thinking does not "cause" God.

Faith does not "cause" God either, but it sure comes in handy when one comes to "Accept" him.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/14/2008 4:30:10 PM)

quote:

You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example.
On the contrary, many have eventually come to saving faith in Christ precisely because someone used the "faulted" KCA to plant the first seeds of insight into our Creator God of the universe!



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/14/2008 4:41:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example.


On the contrary, many have eventually come to saving faith in Christ precisely because someone used the "faulted" KCA to plant the first seeds of insight into our Creator God of the universe!


Hello Drmark.I do hope I do not offend with my remarks. I really am trying. Look again if you will, at my statement. "You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example." Are you saying Jesus Christ is a necessary implication of the Kalam Cosmological argument?

I have a Cousin in Law that I was invited, by his mother, to visit in prison. While he was in prison, where he was practically raised, he was converted to Christ. Could it then be logically concluded that prison's logic leads men to Christ? I don't think so. The prison's logic had just gotten him twenty years added onto his sentence for walking away from a road gang. When I visited him his world was bound on all sides by "solitary confinement" to keep the other prisoners from killing him.

Men may well debate issues of logic, and reach conclusions that will lead them eventually to Christ, but the conversion to Christ cannot be logically concluded from the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And the fact that It is faulted might well lead some away if in fact their faith is dependent upon its veracity.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/14/2008 6:39:08 PM)

quote:

I think what Sam and perhaps both of you were saying is that any cause must also be a chronological antecedent of its effect. If we take a beginning of everything as also the end of our ability to look backwards, then we notice that a necessary criteria for causality is not capable of being found. Does that mean it is not there? No, it would be most appropriate to say that we are not able to properly address the question. We may, if you like, establish that prior occurrences are necessary criteria for asking the question of whether or not, among them, a cause of a particular event can be foudn.


Actually, a cause doesn't have to be a chronological antecedent to be a cause.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 1:23:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: earthless

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamSpick

quote:

If there is a creation then there had to be a creator, just as there had to be a builder to build a house.

But if the creation is space-time itself, how can we speak of a causal agent of any kind? Also, what makes you so convinced that the universe is a "creation" at all?


Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC


Especially when even the most ardent atheistic scientist knows the universe did not always exist and will not always exist.



New here so I don't mean to be contradictory but the universe is, by all available evidence, infinite, eternal, and uncreated, and most respected scientists take this view regardless of their theistic views.

What you might be referring to is the observable fact that the universe's current rate of expansion had to have had a beginning and that particular beginning appears to have been roughly 14 billion years ago. No scientist would make the mental leap to assume that the beginning of the universe's current appearance, or current apparent expansion behavior, was also the very beginning of time. There's simply no way to know if it was or if it was not.

I believe they speak about it as if that's what they think though. They should be more careful in their word choice.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 3:02:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC


Well, since that is my stance I suppose that means you think I have taken an illogical stance on the matter. I hope you'll allow me a polite rebuttal.

You've declared it illogical to think that the universe either created itself or always was, yet you think it is perfectly logical that a supernatural being, whose creation you turn a blind eye to, created the universe from nothing and has always been.

By your logic, something that doesn't need to be explained because it is supernatural created this universe from nothing other than Its whim, and this gives you no cause for doubt.

I don't ask that you embrace my stance on this matter. I only ask that you not call my stance illogical, when your stance bears a striking resemblance to mine, except for the fact that you excuse God of His requirement to be finite, and I excuse the universe from its requirement to be finite. If logic must be abandoned for my stance, then it must be abandoned equally for yours.

I assert that there can be no defensible objection to an eternal and uncreated entity by anyone also arguing that "god" is just such an entity. If your position is that supposing an entity to be infinite is illogical, then please remove the mote in your eye that yields a double standard when applying this logic. Then you will be able to apply the same logic to the notion of God being eternal.

To me the apparent age and origin of the universe bears no significance to the matter of God's existence. Surely God could have created the universe to appear any way He meant for it to appear to fulfill His plan, whether that be infinite, finite, created, uncreated, big or small.

Attempting to use the science of the Universe in favor of an argument for the logic of belief amounts to little more than post hoc rationalization.

It would be better to admit openly that the data is inconclusive, and add the stipulation that no finding regarding the "appearance" of the universe will ever challenge your faith in God.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI