How Did God Come Into existence?

[Shane Plew]

The laws of logic are unseen. They cannot be measured. They are immaterial. Do they exist?
How are these, which reflect the nature of the Christian God along with the laws of science, mathematics, and absolute morals, not evidence left behind by God?
How is order not evidence as opposed to randomness which would have occurred if the universe happened by chance (I've already explained in the other thread how entropy disproves that the universe is eternal? No rational person who understands entropy can deny that the universe is a finite thing.)

You are confusing the laws of logic with fact. There is a difference. Logic is a method of thought, which by the way all Christians seem to abandon, or at least the ones I have talked to including you. The statement that the ball is red is a fact. However, saying that a red ball is blue is dependent on interpretation. Dogs would perceive it to be colorless. What if we didn't see color? We wouldn't know it existed. The point is that without a mind to use logic to find a fact or facts, the facts would be the only thing to exist. Not in the interpretation of the fact but the fact itself, such as if there were no humans to perceive the ball as red, it would still be red, presuming of course that we didn't make it red. And without humans I don't exactly see how a ball could exist, but that is completely beside the point.

 

[CalledOutOne]

You are confusing the laws of logic with fact. There is a difference. Logic is a method of thought, which by the way all Christians seem to abandon, or at least the ones I have talked to including you. The statement that the ball is red is a fact. However, saying that a red ball is blue is dependent on interpretation.

That is not what I said. I gave the fact that the ball is red and I said that it is illogical to say that the ball is also blue at the same time.
You have misrepresented my argument.

Dogs would perceive it to be colorless. What if we didn't see color? We wouldn't know it existed.

Irrelevant.

The point is that without a mind to use logic to find a fact or facts, the facts would be the only thing to exist. Not in the interpretation of the fact but the fact itself, such as if there were no humans to perceive the ball as red, it would still be red, presuming of course that we didn't make it red.

And if there were no humans to perceive that it is impossible for the ball to be blue also at the same time, then it would still be impossible. The ball is still subject to the law of logic.


Logic is not subject to thought, but thought can subject itself to logic.

 

[Shane Plew]

logic:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

People use logic to determine facts. You understand that right? The facts did not come into existence because of logic. You are obviously not understanding how logic works and/or what it is. Until you can understand what logic you can't make a sound argument, so I will continue explaining it until you get it. I'm not just going to accept the fact that your definition is wrong like I granted you that God can be eternal even when you wouldn't grant that the universe couldn't be eternal. So please, just try to understand what logic is before you post again.

 

[CalledOutOne]

logic:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning

People use logic to determine facts. You understand that right? The facts did not come into existence because of logic. You are obviously not understanding how logic works and/or what it is. Until you can understand what logic you can't make a sound argument, so I will continue explaining it until you get it. I'm not just going to accept the fact that your definition is wrong like I granted you that God can be eternal even when you wouldn't grant that the universe couldn't be eternal. So please, just try to understand what logic is before you post again.

Logic is not what is up for debate. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but if you went and read the context of what I said, I said the "Laws of Logic". Not the study of Logic: The "Laws of Logic."

Would you not agree that the laws of logic are facts?

For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that a given object cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time in a given place. Is that a fact or is it not?

 

[Shane Plew]

Logic is not what is up for debate. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but if you went and read the context of what I said, I said the "Laws of Logic". Not the study of Logic: The "Laws of Logic."

If the idea of logic itself is subjective then the laws of logic are as well.

Would you not agree that the laws of logic are facts?

No. If logic and it's so called laws are both subjective then there can be no facts outside of the individuals logic and "laws of logic". If you are talking about one persons logic at a given time then sure, there are laws of logic for that person at that given moment in time.

For instance, the law of non-contradiction states that a given object cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time in a given place. Is that a fact or is it not?

How is this relevant to logic? I'll answer it anyway. I'm not entirely sure. I don't claim to know enough to give you an answer. I will looks into it and maybe get back to you on that.

 

[CalledOutOne]

If the idea of logic itself is subjective then the laws of logic are as well.

This is inconsistent with the claim that you have already made here:
Scientific facts/laws will remain but there will be no one to call it that.

The laws of logic are not subjective. If they were then I could be as illogical as I desired and I would be just as right as someone who isn't.

No. If logic and it's so called laws are both subjective then there can be no facts outside of the individuals logic and "laws of logic". If you are talking about one persons logic at a given time then sure, there are laws of logic for that person at that given moment in time.

See above.

How is this relevant to logic?

The law of non-contradiction is a law of logic therefore it is relevant.

 

[Shane Plew]

With the law of non-contradiction a person can say that something is what it is not, but that does not make it so. I didn't know that this is a law of logic. I shall now restate my question.

How is the law of non-contradiction relevant to the validity of the statement logic is subjective.



These laws of logic that you refer to are only called laws because it is commonly agreed that they are parts of a logical thought process. Since these laws rely on majority opinion, they are subjective. Someone could argue against every single one of these laws. I could argue against these laws and I agree with them. I also believe that better laws can be developed, though I myself can't do that.

Logic is tool used for discerning reality from fantasy. Reality at a given time has definite which can be found using logic. Logic has no definite properties at any given time. To try and define logic using logic is absolutely absurd. It's like trying to prove the validity of the Bible using the Bible (this is off topic but I feel it fits with the theme of the thread). You might ask, "if we can't use logic to determine the properties of logic then what do we use?" I would say that we don't. Simple as that. All we can do is test the the effectiveness of the laws, which is a very good way of determining them, but they can still change and will. This ties in with how our understanding of the laws of the different branches of science changes, but the laws themselves remain the same, at least in a given point in time.



"The laws of logic are not subjective. If they were then I could be as illogical as I desired and I would be just as right as someone who isn't."

This statement is almost correct. You can in fact be as illogical as you want and that does not make you correct. How exactly do you know that our laws of logic are correct? They have changed and surely will change again. It depends on the minds interpreting the laws which makes logic and it's "laws" to be irrefutably subjective. If laws are able to be changed and still be correct they are irrefutably subjective. I don't know how to better put this. I guess if you are incapable of understanding or just refuse to I can't really do anything about it besides what I've already done. If there is anyone who can expand upon my thoughts please do so.

Also how are the "laws" of logic relevant to whether or not God exists? The answer to this could potentially reveal why you don't understand my explanation.

 

[CalledOutOne]

With the law of non-contradiction a person can say that something is what it is not, but that does not make it so. I didn't know that this is a law of logic. I shall now restate my question.

How is the law of non-contradiction relevant to the validity of the statement logic is subjective.



These laws of logic that you refer to are only called laws because it is commonly agreed that they are parts of a logical thought process. Since these laws rely on majority opinion, they are subjective. Someone could argue against every single one of these laws. I could argue against these laws and I agree with them. I also believe that better laws can be developed, though I myself can't do that.

Logic is tool used for discerning reality from fantasy. Reality at a given time has definite which can be found using logic. Logic has no definite properties at any given time. To try and define logic using logic is absolutely absurd. It's like trying to prove the validity of the Bible using the Bible (this is off topic but I feel it fits with the theme of the thread). You might ask, "if we can't use logic to determine the properties of logic then what do we use?" I would say that we don't. Simple as that. All we can do is test the the effectiveness of the laws, which is a very good way of determining them, but they can still change and will. This ties in with how our understanding of the laws of the different branches of science changes, but the laws themselves remain the same, at least in a given point in time.



"The laws of logic are not subjective. If they were then I could be as illogical as I desired and I would be just as right as someone who isn't."

This statement is almost correct. You can in fact be as illogical as you want and that does not make you correct. How exactly do you know that our laws of logic are correct? They have changed and surely will change again. It depends on the minds interpreting the laws which makes logic and it's "laws" to be irrefutably subjective. If laws are able to be changed and still be correct they are irrefutably subjective. I don't know how to better put this. I guess if you are incapable of understanding or just refuse to I can't really do anything about it besides what I've already done. If there is anyone who can expand upon my thoughts please do so.

Also how are the "laws" of logic relevant to whether or not God exists? The answer to this could potentially reveal why you don't understand my explanation.

The laws of logic are facts and not relative. They are simply facts.

Logic might be subject but the LAWS of logic are not subjective.

A statement that contradicts itself is not true. That is a fact. Not a matter of majority opinion, but a fact.

 

[Shane Plew]

First, you answered none of my questions. Next, I have to say that you are wrong. Plain and simple. Observed laws change with our understanding. You are basically saying that we understand understanding. You are saying that we can find how the mind works by thinking. If you don't see the absurdity of what you are saying then there is absolutely nothing I can do to change your mind.

Now that @CalledOutOne has proven he is pretty much insane, does anyone else want to try to answer the original question?

 

[I Eat Pie]

Now that @CalledOutOne has proven he is pretty much insane, does anyone else want to try to answer the original question?[/QUOTE]

That's not very nice you know :3

 

[Shane Plew]

How so?

 

[bloodinthewater]

if God was not infinite, and had not always been around he would not be God. God does not need a creator.

 

[Rubiks]

God doesn't need to be created. God is God. He is eternal.

Our limited perspectives cannot truly understand the concept of eternity

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

The laws of physics embedded in the Universe do not allow for something to come from nothing. And in accordance with our understanding of entropy, the Universe could not have existed forever.

The only option this leaves us is that the cause of our Universe must have been something that is independent from the Universe and is not bound by the laws that said Universe follows. This renders your question self-defeating. A god that created the Universe would have already been free of our laws of physics, hence an explanation of said god's "cause" is not required.

 

[Chris Blanks]

I would say that simple logic would say that something cannot come from nothing. Nothing (but numbers), is infinite. EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end, coming to that conclusion is just common sense.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I would say that simple logic would say that something to come from nothing. Nothing (but numbers), is infinite. EVERYTHING has a beginning and an end, coming to that conclusion is just common sense.

Define "end". If you mean something like life, how does that end? From a naturalistic POV, a human is made up of various elements and electrical charges causing cognitive abilities. So when one dies, the elements are recycled and the energy is converted into thermal, mechanical, or some other form of energy, and there is no spirit that lives on elsewhere.

If you mean entropy, then yes, everything does have an ultimate end.

 

[Chris Blanks]

End-termination; conclusion.

 

[Girder of Loins]

I don't see, from an atheistic POV, where the universe ends. Perhaps you could explain to me how the universe will ultimately end? Seeing as you cannot create nor destroy matter/energy, I don't see where the end is.

 

[Chris Blanks]

Actually black holes can destroy energy and matter, as they have been known to completely disappear with a trace. A popular theory is that the universe will eventually expand so much that it will collapse in on itself, ending the universe we know now and eventually expanding back out to a new universe. This is also a very popular theory on how the universe we know was created and each subsequent universe is moving towards perfection.

 

[GrizzlyMonKeH]

Actually black holes can destroy energy and matter

Pseudoscience.

This violates energy conservation and unitarity.