jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (143 posts)

It Is Logical to Assume That God Exists.

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    ...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm.  I really expected more than a bald statement to that effect; maybe some evidence, maybe a syllogism, maybe a logical argument.  Something to back it up, as Occam's Razor dictates the opposite.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism. Compare with principle of parsimony at parsimony." Dictionary.
        Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. Dictionary.
        I think this is what I do best! big_smile

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You got it!  The simplest explanation is probably the right explanation.

      2. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        FACT: Occam's Razor: Occam was a scientist monk. ie a believer.

        And OF COURSE no atheist even dares mention Godel and his theorems that proves God's existence and  the incompleteness theorem of physics/science.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Godel: (1906–78), US mathematician; born in Austria. Among his important contributions to mathematical logic is the incompleteness theorem. Gödel's work was the surprising culmination of a long search for foundations. Throughout the nineteenth century, mathematicians had tried to establish the foundations of calculus. First Cauchy gave the modern definition of limits; later Weierstrass and Dedekind gave rigorous definitions of the real numbers. By the end of the century, the foundations of calculus rested on integers and their arithmetic. This left the problem of putting the integers themselves on a sound logical basis, which Frege appeared to solve by defining the positive integers in terms of sets. But it soon became clear that naive use of sets could lead to contradictions (such as the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves). Set theory itself would have to be axiomatized. In their massive 3-volume Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead built the foundations of mathematics on a set of axioms for set theory; they needed hundreds of preliminary results before proving that 1 + 1 = 2.

          There remained the problem of analyzing the axioms of set theory. Mathematicians hoped that their axioms could be proved consistent (free from contradictions) and complete (strong enough to provide proofs of all true statements). Gödel showed these hopes were overly naive. He proved that any consistent formal system strong enough to axiomatize arithmetic must be incomplete; that is, there are statements that are true but not provable. Also, one can't hope to prove the consistency of such a system using the axioms themselves. The basic idea of Gödel's proof, indirect self-reference, is strikingly simple, but tricky to grasp. A book-long explanation for the general reader is offered in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/godel.html‎

          Gödel was a convinced theist. He held the notion that God was personal…"
          "He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: 'Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this (the afterlife), independently of any theology. It is possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning that it is entirely consistent with known facts. If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing (as an afterlife).' " Wikipedia

        2. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The reason you won't find atheists mentioning Godel is because they know his theorems do no such thing.

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            TroubledMan
            many atheists are clearly ignoring Godel as his ideas contradict atheist arguments even though Godel is supported by Hawking.
            By both claiming to be logical and avoiding logic you are falling into a denial state of hypocrisy.

            1. A Troubled Man profile image60
              A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Godel and Singer. Wash, rinse, repeat. lol

              1. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah let's all have a chuckle about infanticide and beastiality and get stuck back into the Christians.
                TroubledMan are you ok?

        3. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Your point?  That Occam should be totally discredited because believers aren't smart enough to produce truth?  I would disagree...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Is this your attempt at humor?

            Occam was both a theist and a scientist. This was the actual fact stated by Ozinato.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              That's what I said.  But what was the point of saying it at all?  To discredit "Occam's Razor"?  To give it more credit that it was due?  What was the point in saying Occam was a theist?  OR a scientist?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                You originally brought him up and it is not clear why you did! Probably to discredit the post itself!
                But really the idea of God is personal and should not be argued. So truly, I say:
                Each to their own.
                TWISI

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I brought up Occams Razor (the theorem, not the man) to indicate that the concept of a god, living in a whole separate universe along with His angels and other creatures, was far more complex than the concept of a big bang coming from a singularity, without any cause at all.

                  And it had nothing to do with belief at all, just logic.  As to whether a god is personal and should not be argued: it wasn't I who declared that it was a logical conclusion everyone should be able to come to.  Someone else made up that claim...

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Originally, I was responding to Janesix with this topic.
                    But, yes, I am guilty since I posted it as a forum.
                    My badness.
                    Finis.

              2. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I have clarified my point (below) for those incapable of admitting the "bleeding obvious" (J. Cleese)

          2. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wilderness
            My point: you have used a famous theist's ideas to try and contradict theist  ideas. This is an illogical contradiction you are making. In plain English you are making a ridiculous statement based on a hypocritical assumption. as usual I am sure this won't bother you.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ho ho ho! yikes

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What contradiction would that be?  The only thing I said was that I could not agree that Occam was an idiot simply because he was a theist, and I do stand behind that statement.

              1. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                OK you respect a prominent religious scientist; that's a start.

  2. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    No.

  3. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Just because there's a pattern, doesn't meant there's a plan.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ...who is talking about a plan? I am talking about logic.
      "Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning."
      Introduction to Logic by Irving M Copi. Page 3.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I think it's in your court. You need to explain why believing in God is logical.

  4. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

    rationality: the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason

    logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity

    validity:  quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency

    The definitions seem kind of circular. Can some one decipher it for me? Or give better, more understandable definitions?

    (Editing to add more definitions, for my personal clarification.)

    Cogency: the quality or state of being convincing or persuasive

    Soundness: competent, sensible, or valid

    Fact: a thing that is indisputable

    so, logic is this:

    LOGIC: ability to think, understand, and form judgments, assessed according to strict principles based on indisputable things, that are sensible and convincing.

    Ergo, belief in God is illogical. No facts, nothing that's convincing or indisputable.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Because, everything is so beautifully proportioned in the world!   Consider the the size of trees in relation to ourselves, etc.  Could you imagine if dogs were the size of horses? Or ducks the size of sheep, or people as tall as redwood trees? Or bees the size of birds or orchids the size of redwood trees?!  Some force has controlled the rate and size of growth of all things.  It is logical to assume that lack of randomness proves divine intelligence and a creator.   

      Furthermore, proportion is evidence of logic, itself.
      Conclusion of my premise: God is both logical and can be proved logically.

      "A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure."
      Wikipedia

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not sure what that has to do with God or anything else. There were plenty of extremely large sized animals only just recently (in geological terms) that would seem unproportionally large compared to their current, smaller cousins.

      2. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That isn't an indisputable fact that proves God exists.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No, but we are talking logic here. The unfolding of evolution is based on logic.
          Whatever allows for the continuance of life, evolution adjusts to.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            And yet, you weren't talking about the unfolding of evolution.

      3. A Troubled Man profile image60
        A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That, according to the definition you provided, is bad reasoning, it is not logic.

        Trees are trees and humans are humans, just as ants are ants and bacteria are bacteria. In other words, all life forms have various proportions.

        Are there doges the size of horses? Probably not, but there are animals that are indeed the size of horses, they are called, "horses". There may not be ducks the size of sheep, but there are indeed animals the size of sheep, which incidentally, are called, "sheep". The same goes for the birds and bees and the fishes in the seas...



        That too, is bad reasoning, that is not logic. Here's why...



        Notice the bold? You haven't provided a true assumption, the proportion of life forms varies dramatically from tiny bacteria to the sperm whale. There is no pattern whatsoever with the proportions of animals when compared to one another or anything else.

        That is a non-sequitur.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          It is logical to assume that some logical force designed it that way.

          Furthermore:

          Evolution has a natural tendency to select for the possibility/capability of the existence of life. It is logical to assume that an omnipresent intelligent,  (logical,) force not only directed and directs the course of evolution, but also possesses the desire for the individuals of creation to manifest as a whole. 

          All nature works in harmony. This harmony of purpose for the existence of life must have been directed by some force throughout time and is currently being directed by this force. This force must be an omnipresent intelligent force that desires life to exist. (Note: Interdependence in nature reveals a logical process.)

          This omnipresent, intelligent and willful force must be an invisible force, since we cannot see it.

          Does air not exist since we cannot see it? We deduct that it is there because of the evidence of its existence:  Birds and butterflies, horse flies, dragon flies, fire flies, house flies and bees, etc. fly on it.

          Therefore, just because we can't see the intelligent / logical, omnipresent, willful force doesn't mean it does not exist... as there is evidence that it does exist.

          Right?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Why "must" these things be true?

            Maybe they just exist because of natural law.

          2. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You really must come down from the clouds, down to earth and reality.

            It is not "logical" to think that some outside "force" is designating the size of each organism and designing it that way.  Should you disagree, can you provide a syllogism/logical construct backing your claim?

            It is not logical to postulate an invisible creature from another universe (along with that universe and all it's parts, life and energy) that decided to create this one.  There was no god necessary.

            Nature is NOT "in harmony"; all nature is fighting itself and everything all around it, specifically and particularly all life fights all other life for resources.  As it doesn't exist, there is no reason (logically or otherwise) to again postulate an invisible god-force guiding it.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              - all the fish in the ocean consuming each other enables the species of ocean creatures to continue. It is a logical process needed for ocean-life as a whole, even though you happen not to see it that way.

              When the bee dies off we all die. This small but absolutely vital chain in the link of life will be broken.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That's not harmony. Harmony would be non-competitive. That, I believe, is what he's saying.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Life requires sustenance, whether that be other life or non-living things.  Food, in other words, and on our world of dog eat dog that means that half the life feeds on the other half.

                But a "logical process"?  No, just simple chemistry.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                That is natural selection at work.



                That would be an extinction. Humans would have to rapidly adapt to an earth without bees if such a thing happened. How that would occur is unknown. We could very well die off.

                What does that have to do with an intelligent designer/creator?

                Not too intelligent, is he?

              4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this
          3. A Troubled Man profile image60
            A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But, you nor anyone else has ever shown such a force to exist. Not only that, there is absolutely nothing in nature that even resembles designing forces. This is not logical at all. It is the exact opposite of logic.



            That is not logical thinking, that is magical thinking. You jump from evolution, which is well understood by many people, to an omnipresent intelligence without any explanation, evidence or reason whatsoever.



            What harmony? What are you talking about? Explain this harmony? Where is it observed?



            Why "MUST" such a directing force exist? You have provided no reason or evidence at all for that existence. That is magical thinking.





            If it is invisible and we cannot observe any effects of it whatsoever in nature, then it simply doesn't exist. That is logic.



            Yes, it does, we know exactly what air is comprised of. Air is real. It effects everyone's existence and everyone knows it because they have lungs. This is not even remotely the same thing as an invisible, undetectable force conjured from magical thinking. It is not logic.



            Again, that is the opposite of logic, it makes no sense whatsoever. The evidence of "Birds and butterflies, horse flies, dragon flies, fire flies, house flies and bees" is the evidence of evolution and nature. Those are facts based on hard evidence and logic.



            Wrong. There is no evidence for the existence of your intelligent designer/creator. None.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              It is logical to assume that there is an intelligent , willful and omnipresent force as there is evidence for it.
              Q. What is that evidence?
              A. All life and the processes that keep it in place here on earth.

              My premise is much different than yours':

              Your premises are based on non-objective (subjective) reasoning. "God does not exist because God does not fit in with my preferred expectations of him."

              My premise is based on objective reasoning: "God is based on what God does and is."

              I am the one accepting reality like a man.

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I think you have the subjective and objective reasoning backwards.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Subjective: 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective. Dictionary
                  Objective: 1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective. Dictionary.
                  No, I do not have it backwards. You just do not want to acknowledge I am right.
                  Right?

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You might be right that the Universe in intelligently designed, or that God is the creator and exists. Your reasoning, though, is flawed. There is NO proof of God. At all. There are some indications of design, but nothing that couldn't be explained by laws of nature.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The universe is incontrovertible, logical evidence that there was no creator.

                Easy to say, just as your first comment, not so easy to prove either evidentially or logically.  I cannot prove mine, can you prove yours or is it as worthless as my statement was?

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That anything exists at all,
                  proves the existence of God/ creator, omnipresent, intelligent, willful invisible force that exists in all creation and in the processes of all creation.
                  And many scientists cannot deny this fact!

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "The universe is incontrovertible, logical evidence that there was no creator."

                    Again, your proof or syllogism, contraindicating mine?  A mere statement isn't worth the effort to type it, any more than mine was.

                    Absolutely ALL scientists will deny the statement.

              3. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                There is no evidence for an omnipresent force. It is not logical to assume one.



                That is called evolution. It has nothing to do with omnipresent forces.



                That is nonsense, the facts of evolution are not subjective reasoning nor has it anything to do with preferred expectations and everything to do with reality, which DOES NOT show your creator.



                That is not objective reasoning, that is magical thinking.



                No, you're not accepting reality, you're accepting magic.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  That anything exists at all,
                  proves the existence of God/ creator, omnipresent, intelligent, willful invisible force that exists in all creation and in the processes of all creation.
                  And many scientists cannot deny this fact!
                  And your arguing with me does not change the fact that reality exists, whether you acknowledge it or not.

                  (PS  I'm certainly not saying that we have to get down on our knees and pray, sing in church and all that stuff, if that's what you're worried about.)

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                    A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That is purely magical thinking, there is absolutely no evidence for your creator. The existence of everything shows only nature, there are no gods in nature.



                    That is ridiculously false and you know it.



                    lol Of course, reality exists, but your gods have never been shown to exist.

            2. Oztinato profile image82
              Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Once again an online atheist who pretends Godel doesn't exist. O well we can only marvel.

              1. A Troubled Man profile image60
                A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Still obsessing? lol

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise

      4. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The obvious beauty and mathematical complexity of the Universe is a reason why many scientists past and present, including Einstein, have believed in God.

    2. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      LOGIC: ability to think, understand, and form judgments, assessed according to strict principles based on indisputable things, that are sensible and convincing.

      Ok...
      What is illogical to ME is one who repeats the phrases "You CANNOT understand the scriptures without first understsnding the spirit of the LIVING God. You may not understand the spirit of God without first obtaining his spirit through an act of faith (say yes);" constantly being asked to explain what is, to them, UNobtainable without the NECESSARY faith/spirit.

      Show me your unicorn!
      No, you cannot see him without zb40.
      What is zb40?
      It's this stuff you put in your hand.
      Where can I get it?
      At the corner. Tell them, 736d8.
      Why do I have to say that?
      It's the secret code.
      Why cant I say JELLYFISH???
      That aint the code.
      D*amn! I wanna see your unicorn. And I aint doin all that sh*t!!!
      Let me see your unicorn!!!

      Sound logical???
      Lmaorotf!!!!! smile

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Let's pretend I understood that for a moment

        ...well, no, let's not.

  5. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    If you continue to edit after the fact, you are going to lose people to debate with. It gets old and annoying after a while you know. Plus, you promised you would stop doing it.

    At least, put in the word "Edit' for clarification.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As far as I know it is not illegal to edit after the first posting.
      I will try to avoid posting until I am sure of my thoughts, for your sake though.
      Actually, I don't know if there is much more to say about the topic, though.
      My book looks very complicated. I hate complicated.
      P.S. I  just found this book about logic while walking my dogs last night.
      Any thing else about logic you would like to discuss?

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say it was illegal. It's hard to follow, and makes conversing difficult.

        I love talking about logic. Not that I understand it, however. I have a very illogical mind for some reason (I'm not stupid, I seem to have an odd way of thinking I guess. I don't know).

  6. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    "Does air not exist since we cannot see it?"

    We can see air sometimes. We can measure it, weigh it, feel it, smell it, taste it, even hear it.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But, not see it.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sure you can, sometimes, if it has some form of coloration to it. Can you see a tornado?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That is sand in the air. Revealing that air.

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Some gases have color. Some don't. Air is gas.

            Ergo, you can see some forms of air.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              - what forms of Gas are called AIR?

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/t … group7.php

                Air changes. It's probably never the same from one day to the next. The air we have now wasn't the same as it was a hundred years ago, or a thousand or a million.

              2. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Any of them that exist at normal atmospheric temperatures as a gas.

                And yes, they ALL have color, whether the human eye can see it or not.

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    - my premise: It is logical to assume that a spirit is animating all that exists and is revealed by its activity in and of matter.
    - just as sand reveals the air. Thanks for the analogy!
    - sorry about the edit.
    - what is your premise?

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      My premise is that it is logical to not make an assumption on whether or not the Universe was created, as there isn't enough evidence for either case.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And yet, here it is.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Because something exists doesn't mean it's created. It could just happen.

          Who created God? Where did He come from? You run into the same problem.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Hydrogen: Hydrogen is the lightest of the chemical elements and has the simplest atomic structure, a single electron orbiting a nucleus consisting of a single proton. It is by far the most common element in the universe, although not on the earth, where it occurs chiefly combined with oxygen as water.
    Helium: Helium occurs in traces in air and more abundantly in natural gas deposits. It is used as a lifting gas for balloons and airships, and liquid helium (boiling point: 4.2 kelvins, −268.9°C) is used as a coolant. Helium is produced in stars as the main product of the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen and is the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen.
    These are elements one and two.
    Whomever can tell us where these elements came from, answers the million dollar question.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I took Chemistry in college(Although I didn't get a degree, I aced my classes). I don't see your point.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I was just contributing like you did. I was curious about hydrogen off the chart you contributed. Thanks for contributing it.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Same thing. If it was created, who created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator? If the creator is supposedly self-created, then why can't the Universe just come into existence? At least a non-created Universe cuts out the middle man.

    2. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Hydrogen from the conditions soon after the big bang (energy becoming electrons and protons) and Helium from stars.  Helium is the product of two hydrogen atoms fusing.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hydrogen created the helium and the combo created the stars...

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          That would not be the truth.  Helium has nothing to do with creating stars; they are balls of (almost all) hydrogen and it is hydrogen fusing that makes the star "fire" we enjoy so much.  Which, in turn, makes the helium.

        2. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Stars begin as vast clouds of cold molecular hydrogen and helium left over from the Big Bang".

          Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how- … z2yikFbI4H

        3. A Troubled Man profile image60
          A Troubled Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And, how exactly did the hydrogen create the helium and then the stars?

  9. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    Maybe the Universe is creating itself right now, as we speak:)

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It is apparently expanding as we type; is that not creating itself?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        hmmmm….

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          hhhmm what?

  10. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    "Stars are fueled by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium deep in their interiors. The outflow of energy from the central regions of the star provides the pressure necessary to keep the star from collapsing under its own weight, and the energy by which it shines."

    Nasa

  11. janesix profile image59
    janesixposted 2 years ago

    I think you are both kind of saying the same thing.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      - it is logical to assume God invented (or became) hydrogen.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Broken record. Do you have anything real to bring to the table? This is getting boring.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Have you no sense of humor, Janesix?

          1. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I do. Did you read the last page of the Noah thread? I was pretty hilarious.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I'll check it out.

          2. janesix profile image59
            janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I'm a humorless ice queen.

            (that's from my favorite comedy, Evolution.)

  12. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    As you and the agnostic/atheists keep telling us...there is no way to know anything. It is all a mystery which even the scientists will admit. We keep learning, we keep discovering and I wish there was something new to bring to the table. Like aliens have presented themselves and want to be our friends…
    Alas.

    1. janesix profile image59
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think that maybe we can figure it out. We're pretty smart, for bipeds.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You do???? We are????   Janesix, do you realize how tiny we are in the whole scheme of the universe? It is logical to assume there is no way to ever fathom our existence intellectually.

        1. janesix profile image59
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Sure I do. But look what we've learned in the last 200 years.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ...all based on electricity, fission, fusion and ones and zeros. Big deal.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Not really. I can spend hours a day if I want, studying anthropology, zoology, anatomy, psychology. Learning doesn't have to involve hard sciences.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yes. But, without a premise, there is no true learning. What is your premise, as far as life?

                1. janesix profile image59
                  janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Not sure what you mean by that?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    With many questions …one needs a way to funnel the line of questioning toward a conclusion to either prove or disprove.  "The object of reasoning is to find out, from consideration of what we know, something else which we do not know." Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief."

  13. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    It is logical to assume there is a God who is both logical and loving. This conclusion is based on my premise that love is the most valuable thing in the universe, next to logic, and that it comes from God, just as logic does.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "Language is the principal tool with which we communicate; but when words are used carelessly or mistakenly, what was intended to advance mutual understanding may in fact hinder it; our instrument becomes our burden." Irving M. Copi

  15. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Among natural bodies some have, and some have not, life; and by life we mean the faculties of self-nourishment, self-growth and self-decay. Thus every natural body partaking of life may be regarded as an essential existence; ... but then it is an existence only in combination. ... And since the organism is such a combination, being possessed of life, it cannot be the Vital Principle. Therefore it follows that the Vital Principle must be an essence, as being the form of a natural body, holding life in potentiality; but essence is a reality. The Vital Principle is the original reality of a natural body endowed with potential life ; this, however, is to be understood only of a body which may be organized. Thus the parts even of plants are organs, but they are organs that are altogether simple; as the leaf which is the covering of the pericarp, the pericarp of the fruit. If, then, there be any general formula for every kind of Vital Principle, it is—the primary reality of an organism.
    — Aristotle

  16. 0
    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago

    Godel challenged the completeness of knowing and argued that we cannot know because we are dependent on axioms; mark axioms---rules and systems of rules, as knowledge.

    In other words, what we know is limited by our fixation with fixed sets of axioms.

    For example: Godel tells us that because something is provable (not proved or proven just provable) does not mean that it is truth OR one might argue that God is provable (as did Ockham), but this does not mean that God is a truth.

    God becomes axiomatic and in being axiomatic, to take Godel to a logical conclusion, God becomes a limiter or knowledge and an obstacle to knowing truth.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      axiomatic
      ...Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms. Wikipedia

      Seems like a good argument to me.


      "We especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry."
      Maria Montessori

      1. 0
        mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        As a historian of science, I can say this: Among the most creative and imaginative thinkers in the history of the world as scientists and mathematicians.

        Neither science nor mathematics begins/ends with numbers and logic.

        Science and mathematics are, in fact, elegant and poetic.

        I think Maria Montessori had a very narrow view of science and mathematics and one that was based on a fundamental lack of knowledge of what it is that scientists and mathematicians think. She might have been surprised how much like her---in terms of thinking about knowing, scientists and mathematicians really are.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          @MBUGGIEH
          She, herself, was a scientist, first and foremost. You state a non-truth in regards to her "narrow view."

          Maybe you misunderstand why I quote her here. I am certainly not against scientists. Either was she.

          1. 0
            mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I think she liked to refer to her studies as "science" or as "scientific pedagogy" as I recall from my undergraduate education---and while she was a pediatrician (again I am working from memory) she tended to champion an educational paradigm that jettisoned variations in learning styles and minds for a simplistic "lead the child to knowledge and they will learn everything when they are ready" approach.

            In addition, she presumed that all children enjoy and prefer to engage with what she called "practical" or hands-on learning and presumed that all children have creative minds, prefer creative learning, etc.

            None of this is true, but for Montessori it these were axioms that misguided her approach to education.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "I think…" " I recall…"
              Close, but no cigar?
              Not even…

              What do you actually know about her work that you get to use the word "axiom?"
              It is logical to assume…
              not enough.


              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWFLaDXesnE


              Dr. Montessori was a champion for the Inner Life of the child. To respect it, to be aware of it, to assist it.

              1. 0
                mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Whatever.

                Montessori's approaches to education do not work with most children. Having spent 37+ years teaching I, like my colleagues, have seen many educational gimmicks come and go.

                Unfortunately, for all of its failures and harm, the Montessori gimmick persists.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  W h a t e v e r.

                  Like you have read anything written by her,  w h a t - s o - e v e r ?

                  1. 0
                    mbuggiehposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh please...I got my teacher certification in the mid-1970s...she was "all the rage".

                    We were required to read her books in every education-related class we took; were required to spend part of our student teaching in so-called "Montessori classrooms"---even at the secondary level, and were required in implement her approaches in our students teaching.

                    And if that was not enough: I was required to implement her methods in my classroom in the later 1970s when I was working as a full-time social studies teacher.

                    That said:

                    It is possible---believe it or not, to disagree with someone AND be informed.

                    Disagreement does NOT mean lack of information.

                    My assessment of Montessori is based on what I witnessed and experienced over a 37 year period.

    2. Oztinato profile image82
      Oztinatoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe we should refer to Stephen Hawking's defense of Godel in his free online essay titled "Godel and the End of Physics"?
      Do we dare say we know more about physics that hawking?

 
working