Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

originally posted by: TheLamb
a reply to: edmc^2

I admire your fortitude. It's tough taking a stand for God sometimes. Just know that He is watching and He's right behind us. He'll even lend a hand when the time is right. Apply some logic to this and follow the steps. Can you see GOD in the second graphic at the bottom?

They say that I picked the numbers to stack the outcome. What do you think?

Thanks The Lamb. Yes I do see the "appearance" of the letters G O D if that's what's you were referring to. But I have to say this, I'm not not familiar with nor into numerology. So I can't comment much.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: TheLamb

I respect where you are coming from with your observation. The only problem I see is that "God" is not a ubiquitous term.

So what would you prefer instead? What other term has been more widely used in human history?

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Barcs

That isn't true in all cases though. You only operate from the assumption that God has to exist within the universe. If you remove this assumption then what say you? You argue from an understanding of laws but if those laws only apply to the universe (that which is created) then you can not infer that God has to have been created as well.

I can freely admit though that that is merely an unprovable assumption.

If god exists, then god is not nothing, so the claim about nothing existing is wrong. Another dimension is something. You just said 0+0=0 but didn't factor in anything outside of the universe. You have just debunked your own equation. Thanks for making it easy.

I don't operate on any assumptions. If god can exist outside of the the universe then so could numerous other things. The point is we do not have evidence that anything exists outside of the universe or that there is an "outside" of the universe. Any claim about that is pure assumption as you admitted above. But we should know by now, assumptions do not follow logic.

Shall we try again?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: edmc^2

There MUST be a pre-existing all powerful intelligent life to produce the physical Universe and all the things in it.

Why?

Of course, there's much more evidence supporting my position but the above is a good starting point.

Not if the only thing you are basing it on is your belief that the Bible is the word of your creator instead of various superstitious men.

Why?

Because the alternative is to believe / accept that "nothing" created everything. Hence blind faith.

And the Bible is not the only source for evidence that life or the universe was a creation by God.

Creation or nature also gives us evidence.

Not true.

The alternative is to believe in what is possible....the existence of the Idea of Something and the Idea of Nothing.

Everything in the Universe proves that Ideas in Minds are the ONLY ideas that do not materialize in Space and Time. However, material things carry Ideas that actually do cause those ideas to materialize, like magic. Like human reproduction.

One thing is certain, Ideas from Minds do not spontaneously materialize.

But what if the "possible" is based on science fiction or philosophical mumbo-jumbo, what then?

Blindly believe? I hope not. Otherwise, it'll turn out to be "Blind Faith".

No, we should believe on what's true, otherwise we can easily be swayed by anyone.

a reply to: edmc^2

You don't need to know numerology. I don't know anything about it, never had the inclination to research it. It's just basic maths operations: factors, addition, pi, loci, transformation... all stuff you learn at school.

a reply to: TheLamb

I see where you are coming from but I would think if it were universal it would not be contained to something so localized as a recent language development. I am not saying you are wrong merely offering some criticism for you to consider while you continue to work out your hypothesis and continue your test. That is how science works. Unlike materialist dogma which allows no room for debate or criticism.

a reply to: Barcs

In your zeal you have mistaken something to be debunked but you are wrong. I merely postulated that all conditions have not been accounted for before you made your declaration about how God has to apply to the same rules you are applying to the universe. Gods condition (within or without the universe) has no bearing on whether the material universe came from "nothing". 0+0= 0 only applies to the universe which ideas like the big bang would have to conform to. We have no way to infer what the condition of things beyond that( external to the universe) may be.

I have Been following this thread since its start and feel so frustrated at this back and forth going on.
It seems that one main question/issue is how do you prove that God exists in the first place. I really don't think there is a way to scientifically prove the existence of God and then him having created people, heavens and Earth.
I was taught early on that you have to have faith. When you have faith in God and his plan, you will find the power of prayer.

Answered prayers are the proof in Gods existence. I guess if I went around interviewing everyone who has ever had a prayer answered by God, then I could put together some sort of scientific graph or something.

We will all see proof of God when Jesus Christ returns, but until then, answered prayers, imo, are the only real proof we have.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Exactly, which is why any arguments that reference that sort of thing are not logical. I understand where you are coming from but the title of the thread clearly says "the only LOGICAL explanation". Thus far logic has not factored in to the OP's assumptions or anything else about creation including 0+0=0. Every time you mention that or outside of universe you are making an assumption.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: Barcs

Hmm you keep saying the word logic but I don't think it means what you think it does. Here we go here is some logic.
0 + 0 = 0. If you can make that add up to anything other than zero then go ahead.

Divide both sides 0.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

But it's not a God of gaps theory... It's intelligent design of logical reasoning theory.

Humans can only go so far to answering the questions. Heck, we don't even know what lives in our ocean! That doesn't automatically = God.

If science were to prove everything. I guarantee you we'd eventually end up at the ONE answer. And that's some sort of intelligent design.

In your head, go back to the creation of the universe. What did it come in to existence within? what created our universe? These answers will probably never been explained (at least not in our life time) but this does NOT put God in it's place because we have no other answer. It puts God (or what/whoever) there because it's the only logical explanation that this didn't all just happen by chance.

See my post above regarding a simulation theory. Still creeps me out - but that's a form of intelligent design. And I think it's scarily plausible.

You're still doing it. I can't believe you don't see it. Again you are pointing to all the things you don't know and then claiming that because you don't have a real answer your theoretical answer of God or Creator or whatever must be the answer. That is exactly what "God of the Gaps" is. You put God in those places where you don't have answer to explain it.

You just keep doing and doing it over and over. Trying to explain it as if that isn't what you're doing. But just read your examples. That is exactly what you're doing. Point to the questions that don't have an answer and insert your own made up answer because that is the one you want to go there.

If you can't see what you're doing after I've pointed it out this clearly I don't know how we can continue discussing anything.

I'll tell you how... by realising nobody is always right! this being a perfect case.

I'm not filling GAPS with GOD. I'm stating that the end result will more than likely show some sort of intelligent design. The end result isn't a gap. It's THE thing. It's not gaps along the way to understanding that point of creation. It's understanding that the point of creation of this universe will probably indicate some intelligence.

That's not gaps. That's an end result.

Filling in gaps is like saying... oh well we can't explain that with current methods so that means God. What i'm saying is completely different. I'm saying it isn't a GAP that needs to be filled it's the entire thing we need to understand. And I whole heartedly believe in something more than a biological accident.

Do you understand?

Also, side note, just because Science "fills in" some gaps with explanations doesn't leave them open to dispute and eventually being disproved. Science is fluid and therefore, even the gaps you claim it's filling won't stop ID believers in sitting in that gap with their own explanation. Be it God or otherwise.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Even scientifically speaking, it's incoherent because we know, based on empirical data, a horse can't "crapped the universe into existence". It can't for the simple fact that it has no power nor the ability to do so.

That is not scientifically speaking. The laws of physics say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. No being could create energy in our universe. Your guess is just as much a guess as the horse.

Yes, I agree "that energy cannot be created or destroyed". It's basic science. Hence, we can only transform it in one form or another.

But as for: "No being could create energy in our universe", sure if that being is from the same material universe. But if it's outside the material universe, then your statement is false.

And since we already know that "nothing" cannot create anything, thus energy must then be originated by something or someone that is greater than the energy it/he created.

Question now is:

Which one is the prime candidate for creating energy and transformed it into matter?

Since "nothing" can't be considered when it comes to creation, what or who then?

There's no other alternative but to accept the truth based on empirical evidence.

a reply to: Barcs

I see your point. Well the only way to settle that then would be to prove the illogical nature of the alternatives. Those would be an infinite uncreated universe or that a single or multiple universes were created from the big bang or as some view it ex nihilo.

I posted an article earlier in the thread you might not have read which kind of shows that the big bang theory according to its own scientist and theory can be proven illogical.

As far as an infinite universe? Well an infinite universe leaves no exclusion. All things given enough time become probable right? Even God? Somewhere in another universe or in similar corner of this one there is a version of me that can punch my monitor forever until it becomes this post. The universe and life are far more complex than my computer or this post yet somehow it is supposed to be as valid? So illogical and I am not even doing a great job at trying to show that.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: TheLamb

I see where you are coming from but I would think if it were universal it would not be contained to something so localized as a recent language development. I am not saying you are wrong merely offering some criticism for you to consider while you continue to work out your hypothesis and continue your test. That is how science works. Unlike materialist dogma which allows no room for debate or criticism.

Hypothesis: God exists
Observation: God created the laws of mathematics during the creation which was performed in 24 hour phases: Day 1, Day 2
Observation: God is the beginning and the end but never ending. A circle is the closest thing we can comprehend.
Test: Is God present in numbers connected to 24 and pi?
Result: Yes

originally posted by: peppycat
I have Been following this thread since its start and feel so frustrated at this back and forth going on.
It seems that one main question/issue is how do you prove that God exists in the first place. I really don't think there is a way to scientifically prove the existence of God and then him having created people, heavens and Earth.
I was taught early on that you have to have faith. When you have faith in God and his plan, you will find the power of prayer.

Answered prayers are the proof in Gods existence. I guess if I went around interviewing everyone who has ever had a prayer answered by God, then I could put together some sort of scientific graph or something.

We will all see proof of God when Jesus Christ returns, but until then, answered prayers, imo, are the only real proof we have.

peppycat, three things I mentioned in the OP as sources for evidence of the existence of God.

Through his creation - nature (using true science and logic).
Through his son Jesus Christ and
Through the pages of the Bible.

These are very powerful sources when you open your mind and heart to them. On the other side, atheist have "nothing" to contend with and their faith in man's ability to sort things out. Not too promising. Sad part is, time is running out. Mankind is now facing problems beyond human knowledge and control.

Of course, as far as I'm concern, we have the facts and most of all God. So the future looks bright!

a reply to: edmc^2

The problem is you cannot prove that there was ever a time frame where "nothing" existed in our universe or anywhere else. Again, logic stops right there. Logic also stops when you say something "could" exist "outside" of the universe, that is capable of breaking the laws of physics in our universe, when that is also an assumption. I'm not arguing that they do not exist. I'm arguing that you can't logically connect them to our reality as your thread title suggests.

originally posted by: edmc^2

Sure I can prove you wrong.

I can say you're wrong because what you said doesn't make sense and there's no logic behind it.

"God is a horses ass that crapped the universe into existence" is nonsense.

Even scientifically speaking, it's incoherent because we know, based on empirical data, a horse can't "crapped the universe into existence". It can't for the simple fact that it has no power nor the ability to do so.

However, since there's intelligence in the universe, in nature, then I can logically say that there must be a mind behind it as much as I can say that behind the iPhone is a mind.

Empirical data supports this also and any logical person can see it.

It's not just any horses ass. I said "God is a horses ass..." So are you saying that an infinite God could not become a horses ass and crap out the universe??? Because I thought God could do anything and is infinite without any limits???

a reply to: edmc^2

Your OP is such a mess of bad logic and bad thinking I don't even know where to begin when de-constructing it. I guess I'll begin with this convoluted mess:

But not to those who can't accept a shallow, incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation. The fact is, there are many things science and nature can't explain. There are things in the world, in the universe that are beyond the grasps of science.

I can't even IMAGINE a MORE shallow unsatisfactory explanation then: A God did it. The implication of agency into the origin of the Universe answers nothing, it supplants a mystery with an even bigger more illogical thing, a disembodied transcendent super-man that can will things into existence out of absolute nothing.

And I will be addressing both the Christian God specifically - since you conveniently bring up that that is what you are arguing for - and the more modest deistic God that arguments such as the Cosmological argument argue for.

You say that there are many things science and nature cannot explain but there is absolutely no way that you can prove this. It is simply impossible to look at any phenomenon and declare that science WILL NEVER be able to explain it. You are no different than the ancient Greek saying that Zeus hurls thunderbolts and no scientists or thinker will ever be able to explain how electricity really works. You sound exactly like those ancient puritans who demanded that science not be allowed to “tamper in God's domain” by explaining mysteries long thought to have supernatural explanations.

It may actually be true that there are aspects of nature so bizarre the human mind simply cannot figure them out but what you are arguing for is NOT anything like that. Remember that you are talking about the Christian God here. You are not making an argument for a Universe or a God which is unintelligible to human beings - you believe that the authors of certain books canonized into the Bible HAVE apparently figured out the will, desire and nature of the Creator you claim exists. So why are you also arguing that there are unexplain-able aspects to reality? Is your argument that science cannot quantify or explain the supernatural BUT the authors of these religious texts COULD? God is only intelligible through the scribbling of ancient zealots?

It is so limited when it comes to deeper things.

Science is not poetry. Science is not religion. Science is not in the business of giving people a belief system or a meaning to their lives. It is a method by which we discover things about the natural world, by its very nature science follows METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM meaning it doesn't deal in the supernatural. That isn't to say there is NO supernatural element to our reality but science can only deal with what demonstrably observably manifests in reality. You may as well complain that Meteorologists don't talk enough about politics or that English teachers don't hand out enough math problems to their students, you sound that dumb saying things like this.

Other than the passion and sincerity with which I once held my religious convictions I don't recall there being anything deep about them. I spent hours and hours in fervent prayer, even spoke in tongues trying to get God's spirit to move in me, but none of the beliefs of Christianity are all that deep in comparison with anyone else's beliefs, including naturalists, materialists and secular humanists. There is nothing inherently deep about a religion where an innocent man is sacrificed in some sort of ritualistic God appeasing blood-magic, the word there is repugnant and superstitious not DEEP.

Does this make sense to you? Do you accept such answer - especially from a brilliant mind like Hawking's? If you do, is it science? Or is it philosophy? Or...is it metaphysics?

Krauss and others are dumbing down the actual maths and ideas involved into soundbite form for public consumption. However it is irrelevant whether or not once accepts their current hypotheses about how the Universe came into existence. One can outright reject their claim that the Universe emerged from some weird uneasy state of quantum nothingness and STILL reject God. I personally prefer to leave advanced Cosmology and Physics to people with degrees in the relevant fields. I readily admit that I haven't the slightest idea of the origins of the Universe AND YET I still find the God hypothesis a worthless argument from ignorance.

But compounding the dilemma, atheist face many more problems, including the difficulty of explaining how nothing can produce a thinking intelligent mind.

This is not at all a problem, unless you ALREADY believe that thinking and intelligence require magic. Barring the presupposition that thinking and intelligence are magical properties there simply is no issue here.

Simply saying, "Nature did it" won't cut it

Which is why most atheists admit that we just don't know. We simply see no reason to expect an intelligent agency had anything to do with it. But even if I did accept what scientists are saying that's not faith in the religious sense, if you want to make it sound like it is you have to commit an equivocation fallacy.

Atheism is the disbelief of the claim "a god or gods exist". I do not believe there is a God.

Now I will try to, briefly, address the Christian God as described by folks like William Lane Craig.

God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. All of these factors are contingent, that is dependent, upon the existence of a Universe. If this God exists it cannot have existed without a Universe or outside of time and space.

1) Omnibenevolence - Goodness and morality are dependent upon there being more than one being interacting, the monotheistic God is alone.

2) Omnipotence - Use of power/force requires both time and something to exert force upon.

3) Omnipresence - Obviously without space to be present in God cannot be omnipresent in any meaningful way.

4) Omniscience - Without things external to his own mind to know about God's omniscience is meaningless.

None of God's typical attributes can even exist without a Universe to give them meaning. God is also typically considered a disembodied mind that exists outside time and space. Not only is the idea of something EXISTING beyond time and space logically problematic and potentially incoherent but there is simply no evidence that a mind ever could survive without a physical construct and a place in space time in which to exist. A mind by its very definition would still need time in which to think and a space in which to be contained. What Christians are actually arguing for is not a mind at all, only through special pleading can they say such a being exists by pretending it can break all these rules "cause its God".

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

Sure I can prove you wrong.

I can say you're wrong because what you said doesn't make sense and there's no logic behind it.

"God is a horses ass that crapped the universe into existence" is nonsense.

Even scientifically speaking, it's incoherent because we know, based on empirical data, a horse can't "crapped the universe into existence". It can't for the simple fact that it has no power nor the ability to do so.

However, since there's intelligence in the universe, in nature, then I can logically say that there must be a mind behind it as much as I can say that behind the iPhone is a mind.

Empirical data supports this also and any logical person can see it.

It's not just any horses ass. I said "God is a horses ass..." So are you saying that an infinite God could not become a horses ass and crap out the universe??? Because I thought God could do anything and is infinite without any limits???

Oh I see, more ridiculous assumptions.

God said himself he can't lie. So he has a limit.

a reply to: edmc^2 I'm not sure what passage in the bible it was and don't have time to look it up but isn't God going to harden peoples hearts to Jesus Christ and God?
This means it will be ever more of a challenge to get through to folks who just believe in concrete solid facts and without an open heart, these folks will never experience what it is to know That God created us and has divine plan.
Thanks for the reply. Peace and goodwill