Because the universe is bound by rationality. Reason allows for meaning.

Are these two separate statements or a because x, y statement? Either one it doesn’t make sense and doesn’t have to do with the topic at hand or even what of my statements you quoted.

An attribute of God must be rationality, we know this from logical reasoning:

God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift, because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

God cannot create a square-circle, because it violates the LoNC.

You don’t see the problem with this? You’re assuming “God” exists, and furthermore you’re assuming rational parameters for an irrational being.

Since an attribute of God is rationality, it allows for meaning, therefore God would find meaning in his creation.

Now this is a non sequitor and I’m not misspeaking. And on top of that you’re still assuming “God” exists, and then assuming that this God has a power to create matter, and then you’re assuming that this God is bound by rational limits. Even still none of these assumptions mean that “God” would find meaning in his creation, it just means that this God would obtain the ability to see meaning in things he creates (assuming your first statements are true).

To find meaning in His creation, He would seek a relationship with it. Since the universe is non-reasoning, he would keep meaning in His relationship with that which is reasoning: Man.

You’re assuming (again) that to find meaning in something this being (who you assume to be rational) must form a relationship with it–why do you think this God must seek a relationship with something to find meaning in it? And I don’t understand your last sentence (Universe is non-reasoning? keep meaning in his relationship? leading to man? How and why would you assume any of this?)

Faith has nothing to do with defying rationality, it actually embraces rationality and accepts that which is logically possible though unseen.

Logically possible though unseen? If I believe in unicorns I have faith that they exist, if all evidence shows that they don’t exist believing in them is defying rationality. Sure, there is a possibility they might exist on another planet in another galaxy, but it is still defying rationality to believe that they exist. Same with any god.

An example is believing in truth (even scientific truth), means you have to accept the logical possiblity, even though “True” and “False” are unseeable.

Tim Burton on April 9, 2007 at 5:40 PM

This example has nothing to do with “defying rationality.” It has to do with believing something is true (1+1=2), however if you believed (or had faith that) 1+1=2 and there was no evidence supporting it you would be “defying rationality.”

There’s the statement that separates deists from different religious views from atheists. The deist would ask why you think that this “consciousness” needs to be the Christian God and not some other force. The atheist would ask why must there be a consciousness instead of a random sudden causation of existence. And the religious believer would accept that a consciousness formed the universe and that the specific consciousness is the one in their holy book.

Because the universe is bound by rationality. Reason allows for meaning.

An attribute of God must be rationality, we know this from logical reasoning:

God cannot create a rock too big for him to lift, because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction.

God cannot create a square-circle, because it violates the LoNC.

Since an attribute of God is rationality, it allows for meaning, therefore God would find meaning in his creation.

To find meaning in His creation, He would seek a relationship with it. Since the universe is non-reasoning, he would keep meaning in His relationship with that which is reasoning: Man.

It’s called the leap of faith for a reason. I think it is a huge leap of faith to accept that a consciousness formed the entire universe and then that that consciousness is the Christian/Muslim/whatever God.

Pretty good thread while it lasted.

Faith has nothing to do with defying rationality, it actually embraces rationality and accepts that which is logically possible though unseen.

An example is believing in truth (even scientific truth), means you have to accept the logical possiblity, even though “True” and “False” are unseeable.

Atoms can be measured in fast/slow, straight/curved, up/down, but truth can not be measured in a materialistic way (Evidence can be materialistic or non-materialistic, but not truth). Therefore Truth is immaterial yet rational.

Granted this doesn’t prove the Judeo-Christian God, but it does show that your argument is logically flawed.

The time dimension that God experiences, and refers to as days in Genesis, can’t be in the same sequential dimension that we see, otherwise there is no way that “a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.”

Although Adam’s sin did not occur until long after evolution began, in logical priority it is near the beginning because it was the means chosen by God to demonstrate his grace. So the order in which God created things is not the same order in which we first see them from within his creation.

pedestrian on April 5, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Boy that is jumping through some huge logical hoops to get to your conclusion.

Seems using reason, it is easier and more logical to believe that God created the universe in 7 days.

If God is infinitely powerful, He could.
If God is infinitely powerful, He would.
If He could and would, then He must.
If He must, then He did.

While the actually issue of the logical argument is creating the universe good and perfect, but the first priori actually points to the crutch of the issue. If God is infinitely powerful, he could create the universe in 7 days.

The issue is that science rejects the 6000 year assumption and instead decided to accept the assumption that the universe was created billions of years ago.

Both are assumptions based upon their worldview and philosphy of it. Then both sides take their position and try to fit the facts around it.

Only a consciousness — a mind — making a choice could cause things to exist a finite time in the past

There’s the statement that separates deists from different religious views from atheists. The deist would ask why you think that this “consciousness” needs to be the Christian God and not some other force. The atheist would ask why must there be a consciousness instead of a random sudden causation of existence. And the religious believer would accept that a consciousness formed the universe and that the specific consciousness is the one in their holy book.

The truth is, no matter how much we each want to be right about what was “before the Big Bang,” we will never know for sure what was before the Big Bang if there was anything. But that’s the relativist in me speaking and I get yelled about it a lot from each side of the debate.

Sure it takes faith to make the connection — but not really that much faith. It’s worth pointing out that every position on origins takes varying amounts of faith.

jdpaz on April 9, 2007 at 12:50 PM

It’s called the leap of faith for a reason. I think it is a huge leap of faith to accept that a consciousness formed the entire universe and then that that consciousness is the Christian/Muslim/whatever God.

Pretty good thread while it lasted.

1. It is impossible to traverse an infinite. Time cannot extend infinitely into the past. Imagine yourself infinitely far back in the past. Now traverse time, one day at a time. Can you see where, logically, you would never get to April 9th, 2007—how you’d always be infinitely far away from today? Time must have had a beginning…and the state before that must have been timeless (and therefore changeless).

2. You seem to discount any sort of intelligent being existing in this changeless “void”. If that’s the case then the conditions necessary for the universe to come into existence must have been present changelessly. These conditions would require the universe to spring into existence out of necessity an infinite time ago. From 1. we’ve determined that this is not logically possible.

3. Only a consciousness — a mind — making a choice could cause things to exist a finite time in the past.

I find these to be inescapable conclusions. I suppose reasonable people could disagree — but I’m hard-pressed to see where there’s any wiggle room.

I agree that I can’t prove that the Christian God is the first cause. But I do find it more than passingly interesting that pre-scientific shepherds and wheat farmers described a being with all the attributes that logic and science dictate the first cause must have. Sure it takes faith to make the connection — but not really that much faith. It’s worth pointing out that every position on origins takes varying amounts of faith.

Vacuum Fluctuation Model

The virtual particles have to come from somewhere. The charge for these particles must have always existed–an infinite. Something can’t come from nothing, and if something is there before the beginning of the universe it must have always been there–an infinite. But keep in mind that we will never know for sure exactly what was in the universe before the Big Bang if there was anything in the universe before the Big Bang.

Actually it is not a non sequitur.

Agreed, I misspoke, buy my point still stands: existence before the Big Bang (if there was existence before the Big Bang) may or may not be spaceless/timeless.

That’s not what he’s done. He deduces, logically and scientifically, what the properties of the First Cause must be. He then calls that thing “God”.

And I’d be okay if he just did this, but he goes beyond calling it “God,” he goes on to say that this “God” is the Christian God who is capable of influencing all life on Earth, destroying Earthly cities, etc.

If he called it Ed or GUITS would that make you more comfortable?

They’re all equally absurd.

You’re treading awfully close to supernatural explanations here

I was joking when I said that (God works in mysterious ways) in hopes to show you how little sense answers like that make.

I can use the Bible as support for why I believe the Christian God is that First Cause.

jdpaz on April 6, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Yes you can, but using The Bible won’t prove that the Christian God is the “first cause.”

Whatever. Now his Goldilocks theory takes faith…

I just have to share this:

~snerk~ I hope he’s just kidding!

name a theory

Vacuum Fluctuation Model

non sequitor

Actually it is not a non sequitur. You stated that you weren’t sure if P and not P could simultaneously be true. I was merely pointing out that P and not P indeed cannot be true.

They assume “god” with no proof

That’s not what he’s done. He deduces, logically and scientifically, what the properties of the First Cause must be. He then calls that thing “God”. If he called it Ed or GUITS would that make you more comfortable?

The universe works in mysterious ways.

The law of increasing entropy has no known exceptions. That’s why the patent office no longer accepts submissions for perpetual motion machines. You’re treading awfully close to supernatural explanations here—not that much different than me.

You may think that something needs to be spaceless/timeless for it to exist before the big bang, but you can’t really be sure.

Rigorous science and logic dictate that these conditions indeed be so…and I found it intriguing that the bible writers used the same descriptions for the First Cause. So it wasn’t circular reasoning at all. I can use the Bible as support for why I believe the Christian God is that First Cause.

http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c5280214e0486b273a5f

Please provide documentation to back this up.

I’m not going to search for documentation on every single theory and provide links that people won’t read in a thread that’s almost done for anyway, but name a theory on how the universe was created and I’ll show you how it requires an infinite.

You agree that the state before sigularity is spaceless therefore you can’t believe the creator is a blob of matter. Matter takes up space.

This is a non sequitor, and even though I may agree that existence before the big bang (although I’m not even sure if there was existence before the big bang) was spaceless, doesn’t mean that I am positive that it was spaceless. If I were positive about something like that it would be similar to believing in a god.

This isn’t a possibility. There would be no usable energy left in the universe per laws of entropy.

The universe works in mysterious ways. To hear religious people talk about “possibility” of something in the universe when they blindly accept the “possibility” that there is a being called “God” who talks to people on Earth, destroys Earthly cities, and has Earthly children gets me laughing.

What specific issue do you have with his reasoning?

I told you exactly the problem I had with what was said; if you would read beyond the section you quoted you would see what I had to say. They assume “god” with no proof because they can’t explain it any other way.

contradicting the boundary conditions

You’re acting as if these “conditions” are ultimate. You’re not even sure if these conditions are true. This unicorn was always here, it wasn’t created by anything or anyone, it’s all-knowing; sound familiar? You may think that something needs to be spaceless/timeless for it to exist before the big bang, but you can’t really be sure.

Let’s remember how the pre-scientific Bible writers described the creator:

You’re assuming all these descriptions to be true. You can’t prove that God exists by quoting The Bible; it’s circular.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

No, every model requires an infinite

Please provide documentation to back this up.

The creator could be a timeless blob of matter…Spaceless? I agree….

You agree that the state before sigularity is spaceless therefore you can’t believe the creator is a blob of matter. Matter takes up space.

there is a possibility that the universe is infinite

This isn’t a possibility. There would be no usable energy left in the universe per laws of entropy.

The problem I have with the link you provided….

What specific issue do you have with his reasoning?

…made it a giant unicorn in the sky….

It couldn’t possibly be a Giant Unicorn in the Sky (GUITS). A GUITS takes up space and is part of the universe—contradicting the boundary conditions.

Let’s remember how the pre-scientific Bible writers described the creator:
John 4:24 God [is] a Spirit — spaceless
Malachi 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not — changeless
Psalms 147:5 Great [is] our Lord, and of great power — immensely powerful
John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am — timeless

Just so happens that these shepherds got all the boundary conditions right.

Oh, and the “ample evidence” I was talking about was the same evidence that the Apostle Paul was talking about—the universe.

No, every model requires an infinite

Except, of course, for E=MC2 which requires a fixed limit on the speed of light.

Nonfactor, every scientific model yet devised to explain the universe requires that there be a personal creator.

No, every model requires an infinite; some people have envisioned this infinite to be a personal creator. Because we don’t truly know what it is any speculation is just that, speculation. The creator could be a timeless blob of matter that initiated the creation of the universe, or the universe could have always been here and it is simply expanding to become bigger, or the creator could be a man-like figure who personally created the Earth and had a son with an Earthling, but we don’t really know, and pretending to know the ultimate truth about what happened before the Big Bang can’t be based in fact.

the universe must necessarily have a beginning.

Again, there is a possibility that the universe is infinite, but I cannot tell you with any certainty (just as religious people cannot tell me with any certainty that Allah or the Christian God was always here) that that is the truth.

Whatever it was (the first cause) had to have certain properties: timeless, spaceless, immensely powerful, and capable of making a choice (for reasons explained here

Timeless? I agree, but I can’t be certain. Spaceless? I agree, but I can’t be certain. Immensely Powerful? I agree, but can’t be certain. Capable of making a choice? I disagree, but can’t be certain. But simply because I cannot be certain does not mean that the answer is any type of “god.”

The problem I have with the link you provided is that they determine that they can’t be certain how the universe was before the Big Bang and thus they assume that it must be “god,” and not just any god, the Christian God. God is only assumed because it’s an explanation we’re all familiar with, but there is absolutely no proof that the universe was created by god, even more so that this god is a conscious being that influences life on Earth.

the Christian God fits the bill quite well.

Simply because an idea devised attempts to answer many unanswerable questions doesn’t mean that it is true. If someone wrote down a being with all the qualities of the Christian God but instead made it a giant unicorn in the sky why would that not be any more far fetched?

There is ample evidence so that we are without excuse.

jdpaz on April 6, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Evidence written down in a book that tells you it’s true and that you want so much to believe in it you agree.

all Christians, with a Christian worldview. They may not all have agreed on all of the tenets of the faith, but all believed in the Christian God as Creator. Were it not for their achievements in their respective sciences, the world would be a much darker place.

jp on April 5, 2007 at 12:43 PM

No argument from here. I was taking issue with the statement that all major branches of science were “discovered by Christians”. Archimedes, Ptolomy–oh forget it. Yes, nothing happened before Christ of any note.

Supernatural beings, by definition, are not a part of the natural world. An omniscient being who can violate physical laws at will cannot be tested.
dorkafork on April 5, 2007 at 3:22 PM

Agreed: Science cannot prove the existence of God, but I’ve never understood how this logic leads to the conclusion that we must examine the natural world AS IF the supernatural doesn’t exist.

“I can’t measure it therefore it doesn’t exist” isn’t logical. “I can’t measure it therefore I must exclude it” has the same practical effect and as such is also not logical.

Further, the fact that we can’t see, test, or scientifically describe God only proves our inability to independently ascertain Him. It certainly doesn’t preclude Him from revealing Himself to us!

William2006 on April 6, 2007 at 2:23 AM

You’re assuming evolution is independent of the concept of god. And it’s not about “accepting” an unprovable theory (god) it’s about using logic to reject it.

William2006 on April 6, 2007 at 2:28 AM

You’re misunderstanding what the Big Bang was. It’s not like scientists created the theory with nothing to back it up. Read any contemporary astrophysicist before you start making broad statements about what you think the Big Bang was.

It is also an assumption that there is no intelligence involved with creation

The assumption is that there is an intelligent designer, not that there isn’t one.

is all merely a series of accidents, mutations, etc., without purpose, unguided, over a long period of time

Simply because you find this hard to accept doesn’t mean that it is absurd. I find it strange that people who believe in a god find it so easy to accept that some architect designed all forms of life and set them on Earth, but find it so hard to see that life naturally evolves over time.

God is an answer to the unanswerable to ease the minds of the weary: Why are we here? Science can’t answer it, nature can’t answer it, nothing can answer it except for a concept of some larger force with an unknowable “plan.” Because the thought that there is no inherent purpose to human life is so hard to accept we humans invent a theory to tell us “we do have a purpose;” I’m not condemning wanting to know why people are alive, I’m condemning people who create an answer to the question that cannot be proven.

Was anyone here present to observe “The Big Bang?”

No?

Then it is an assumption that there was a “Big Bang.”

Using the intellect one can surmise, infer, or theorize, or even fantasize that there was a “Big Bang,” but the fact is, no one knows and there might have never been a “Big Bang.”

It is also an assumption that there is no intelligence involved with creation, but it is all merely a series of accidents, mutations, etc., without purpose, unguided, over a long period of time. Of course, it can also be said that the existence of an intelligence behind creation, or even a “God” – capital “G,” is an assumption.

William

Just because science cannot presently explain something doesn’t mean the answer is “The God of The Bible.”

Nonfactor on April 6, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Just because some people don’t want to accept Intelligent Design, Creation Science, Irreducible Complexity, that an Intelligence,a design, an intention, and a purpose are behind creation, etc., doesn’t mean that the answer is “Evolution.”

William