Thread: The Logic In Creationalism.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Its a 'common sense' law. If it was never created, then it never existed. So, how can people believe there is no god or higher power that created the universe? Obviously something had to.[/b]

Extend this logic the other direction. Obviously something had to create the creator - otherwise it never existed. But what then created that creator? [enter infinite loop]

Seeing that if you apply the same logic to your conclusions and get an incoherent answer the logic is probably flawed.

Originally Posted by spoon

Extend this logic the other direction. Obviously something had to create the creator - otherwise it never existed. But what then created that creator? [enter infinite loop]

Seeing that if you apply the same logic to your conclusions and get an incoherent answer the logic is probably flawed.
[/b]

I love it, alright, to be sure this logic is flawed. THe Creator was never created and the universe is His creation, this may or may not be logical, it simply is. If there is any logic in the creation it would be in the logic preceding the creation, that is, the thought or reasons for creation. This appears to be unknown and unrecorded in any religious document.

So, any thoughts about the first thoughts?

If the universe was never created, how would it exist in the first place?[/b]

It was theorized for years that the universe had always existed by collapsing and exploding again, big bang, big crunch, big bang, big crunch. However, since 2002 most cosmologists have come to the conclusion that the universe is doing the impossible, it is overcoming gravity and excellerating outward(look up big crunch on wikipedia). If this is so then we do not have any idea about the origin of the universe.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Its a 'common sense' law. [/b]

Exactly. And all laws (such as gravity) have to be made by a lawgiver.

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Extend this logic the other direction. Obviously something had to create the creator - otherwise it never existed. But what then created that creator? [enter infinite loop][/b]

"From a purely scientific standpoint, it is easy to demonstrate that matter cannot be eternal in nature. The universe is expanding from what appears to be a beginning point in space/time, which appears to be a one time event. Hydrogen is the basic fuel of the cosmos, powering all stars and other energy sources in space. If the fuel of the universe has been used eternally, that fuel will eventually be depleted, but the evidence is that the cosmological gas gauge, while moving toward “empty,” is yet a long way from being there—a condition incompatible with an eternal universe. The second law of thermodynamics insists that the cosmos is moving toward a condition of disorder, sometimes referred to as “heat death.” Even in an oscillating universe, things ultimately run out of energy and “die.” All of these evidences, and several others we have not made reference to, show that matter cannot be eternal, as Dr. Sagan and his associates would like to believe."

However, what about God? Well many many people have a mistaken concept of God. God is not physical, he is not anthropomorphic. God is a spiritual entity and exists outside of the three-dimensional, physical world in which we live. I know it is hard for a mere humans to comprehend sometimes but there are lots of vast physical things even our mind cant comprehend, such as the heat of the core of the sun being 27,000,000 degrees farenheit. We cant comprehend such intense heat. Also space. Who can comprehend that there is no begginning or end to space? If one was to keep dwelling on that it could give them a headache! But it is only logical that God created everything than that everything popped out so intricately and perfectly by chance by the first physical thing that happened to pop out of nowhere.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("SwordOfTruth")</div>

I love it, alright, to be sure this logic is flawed. THe Creator was never created and the universe is His creation, this may or may not be logical, it simply is.[/b]

If you&#39;re accepting that something can exist without being created, ask yourself the question: "What is more logical? God - a being who can think, act and create arising out of nothing; or the universe, which is inanimate, arising out of nothing".

Occam&#39;s razor - "when multiple competing theories have equal predictive powers, the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities. It is in this sense that Occam&#39;s razor is usually understood."

If there is any logic in the creation it would be in the logic preceding the creation, that is, the thought or reasons for creation. This appears to be unknown and unrecorded in any religious document.

So, any thoughts about the first thoughts?[/b]

If god&#39;s existence preceded the universes:

1. God exists outside of the universe
2. Time is an intrinsic part of the universe
3. Therefore, god exists outside of time
4. A descision can be defined as a change in mental state
5. A change requires time
6. Therefore, for god to decide to create the universe he needed time
7. By 3 this is false

So either god can exist before our universe, but within another not of its making (and here the infinite loop starts again). Or a god did not decide, from outside our universe, to create it.

As far as I can tell, the logic is against creationism, not with it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("lonewolf")</div>

Exactly. And all laws (such as gravity) have to be made by a lawgiver. [/b]

Just because human made laws are all given by a lawgiver does not mean that scientific laws are the same.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("lonewolf")</div>

But it is only logical that God created everything than that everything popped out so intricately and perfectly by chance by the first physical thing that happened to pop out of nowhere.[/b]

That would possibly be more logical, yes. However, the universe did not just pop out intricately and perfectly by chance. It popped out, yes, but the intricacy and "perfection" came a lot later. The universe has changed a lot over time

Spoon: Although I side with you on this matter, I must point out that the following:

Originally Posted by spoon

1. God exists outside of the universe
2. Time is an intrinsic part of the universe
3. Therefore, god exists outside of time
[/b]

is a logical fallacy.

Example:
1. A dog is not a cat.
2. A cat is a mammal.
3. Therefore, a dog is not a mammal.
While it is true that dogs are not cats, and it is true that cats are mammals, this does not prove that dogs are not mammals. A dog may be a mammal regardless of whether or not a cat is a mammal.

Similarly:
1. God exists outside of the universe.
2. Time is an intrinsic part of the universe.
3. Therefore, God exists outside of time.
While it is true (or, at least, we are assuming here) that God exists outside of the universe, and it is true that time is an intrinsic part of the universe, this does not prove that God exists outside of time. God may be subject to time regardless of whether or not the universe is subject to time.

The whole "Who created God" argument has been around for some time, but its quite simple. God created this universe, and since that is the case, we can assume that he wasn&#39;t derived from this soul universe. He has to have come from another "place" where our laws wouldn&#39;t apply. Think of it as going to another dimension where the laws of physics dont apply. Its like the idea behind heaven and hell. They aren&#39;t part of this universe, but are universes themselves.

Its completely logical and makes sense. What makes it difficult to understand is trying to think of a world without the same sense of time, being that he was never created. It feels like and infinite loop inside your head only because this is the only world you have ever trully experienced. Time and the laws of physics are all you know, for now.

The whole "Who created God" argument has been around for some time, but its quite simple. God created this universe, and since that is the case, we can assume that he wasn&#39;t derived from this soul universe. He has to have come from another "place" where our laws wouldn&#39;t apply. Think of it as going to another dimension where the laws of physics dont apply. Its like the idea behind heaven and hell. They aren&#39;t part of this universe, but are universes themselves.

Its completely logical and makes sense. What makes it difficult to understand is trying to think of a world without the same sense of time, being that he was never created. It feels like and infinite loop inside your head only because this is the only world you have ever trully experienced. Time and the laws of physics are all you are accustomed to, for now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("DuB")</div>

Spoon: Although I side with you on this matter, I must point out that the following is a logical fallacy.

Example:
1. A dog is not a cat.
2. A cat is a mammal.
3. Therefore, a dog is not a mammal.
While it is true that dogs are not cats, and it is true that cats are mammals, this does not prove that dogs are not mammals. A dog may be a mammal regardless of whether or not a cat is a mammal.

Similarly:
1. God exists outside of the universe.
2. Time is an intrinsic part of the universe.
3. Therefore, God exists outside of time.
While it is true (or, at least, we are assuming here) that God exists outside of the universe, and it is true that time is an intrinsic part of the universe, this does not prove that God exists outside of time. God may be subject to time regardless of whether or not the universe is subject to time.[/b]

Yes, god may be subject to time. I did say:

"So either god can exist before our universe, but within another not of its making (and here the infinite loop starts again)."

If god exists within time, and the act of creation requires time (even the act of deciding to create&#33, then it logically follows that god did not create time. And then we get back to the infinite loop. I thought it was implied but I guess I should have stepped out another proof(? whats a syllogism with more than 3 lines?)

Assume god created, and is subject to, time:

1. God exists within time
2. God created time
3. An act of creation requires a decision
4. A decision can be defined as a change in mental state
5. A change requires time
6. The decision to create time requires time
7. Therefore, by 6. the claim of 2. is false

If 2. is false, 1. may not necessarily be false, but then you arrive (again) at the choice between god or the universe arising without conscious cause - and the principle of parsimony eliminates god.

Thanks for making me clarify

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("invader tech")</div>

The whole "Who created God" argument has been around for some time, but its quite simple. God created this universe, and since that is the case, we can assume that he wasn&#39;t derived from this soul universe. He has to have come from another "place" where our laws wouldn&#39;t apply. Think of it as going to another dimension where the laws of physics dont apply. Its like the idea behind heaven and hell. They aren&#39;t part of this universe, but are universes themselves.

Its completely logical and makes sense[/b]

This isn&#39;t actually logical at all. You&#39;re starting with an assumption ("god created this universe") and "since that is the case" you&#39;ve assumed certain things "a soul universe" must be necessary for it. It&#39;s important to note that this "soul universe" has no actual logical reason than to justify your assumption you know to be the truth.

A logical form of this would be the other way around: you observe or logically prove the existence of this "soul universe"; you observe or logically prove that creation is streaming from this universe; you infer that god could have created the universe from this place.

Aside from the faulty logic (is it traditional fallacy? I want to say ad hoc..) the principle of parsimony (Occam&#39;s razor) is very useful here. You&#39;re introducing assumptions and inventing hypothetical universes in which physics don&#39;t apply (again, more introduction of assumptions) simply to justify a belief that you think must be true.

Strays from the &#39;common sense law&#39; you started with.

-spoon

edited for grammar

Just another incarnation of the Turtles All The Way Down argument.

Honestly, if gawd can spontaneously exist, why can&#39;t the middleman be cut out and just have the universe spontaneously exist? Why does there have to first be a gawd?

And time does not seem to exist outside out universe, either. Space time is ma nipulatable due to matter, the less matter around, the slower time goes, you get far enough to where matter is having absolutely nop effect on the void at all, and time stops complete.y Without matter, at least in the realm of this universe, there is no time.

Anyway, as a person who&#39;s beliefs have been influenced by existentialism, I don&#39;t think it&#39;s possible for huimans to comprehend the suddenly inactment of creation. You could say things like the big bang, but where did that come from? Where did this void it all sits in come from? Somethings humans just can&#39;t understand.

Going back to the first argument: nobody would say that nothing created the universe. The red shift observation makes it pretty clear that something did.

However, assuming that the creator is a sentient being is a rather illogical one. As far as we can tell, sentience has no meaning outside of a universe with our qualities ie. multiple space dimensions and a single time dimension.

By the way... now I think about it, isn&#39;t the first cause argument completely flawed? The logic it applies (essentially that one thing gives rise to another, therefore something gave rise to the universe) only functions in our universe? As soon as you lose time (you go beyond the point of singularity), this sort of logic no longer works?

The first cause argument is a singular property of a spacetime universe. No spacetime... no need for a first cause&#33;

Just goes to show how most of these logical proofs are the pitfalls of people believing that only those concepts understood by humans can possibly apply to anything else.