It Is Logical to Assume That God Exists.

Jump to Last Post 1-16 of 16 discussions (143 posts)

77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago
...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You got it! The simplest explanation is probably the right explanation.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The reason you won't find atheists mentioning Godel is because they know his theorems do no such thing.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Godel and Singer. Wash, rinse, repeat.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Your point? That Occam should be totally discredited because believers aren't smart enough to produce truth? I would disagree...
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Finis.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I have clarified my point (below) for those incapable of admitting the "bleeding obvious" (J. Cleese)
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ho ho ho!
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  OK you respect a prominent religious scientist; that's a start.
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 years ago
No.
reply report
60
janesixposted 9 years ago
Just because there's a pattern, doesn't meant there's a plan.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think it's in your court. You need to explain why believing in God is logical.
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That isn't an indisputable fact that proves God exists.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, you weren't talking about the unfolding of evolution.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why "must" these things be true?
  
  Maybe they just exist because of natural law.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's not harmony. Harmony would be non-competitive. That, I believe, is what he's saying.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/death-of-t … de/5377846
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think you have the subjective and objective reasoning backwards.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  God is behind the laws of nature. Where did they come from? They came from an intelligent, logical, omnipresent, willful and invisible force.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What is this thread doing in Education and Science? Catastrophic failure.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, and dunce hats will be the consequence for wrong answers.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And your proof is...?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Because they exist!
  As I already stated:
  "That anything exists at all, (including the laws of nature,)
  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!"
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Not proof.
  report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  We are talking about logic, not proof. Wrong Forum. You are looking for proof. That is a subjective urge on your part. To be logical you must remain objective.
  report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.)
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin 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.
  
  Of course, reality exists, but your gods have never been shown to exist.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You are refusing to look at the facts of the matter. So, my argument is falling on "deaf ears."
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  List the facts, please. I would love to see them. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That I exist... points to a Creator. I did not create myself. I do not even know how my stomach or brain works! Yes evolution, but why me, now? How did I get here in this body created through eons of time through evolution. Conclusion: since I did not make me, it is logical to assume that some other force did. (Edited)
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, it isn't, and repeating that false premise over and over doesn't make it true.
  
  You were born of parents, obviously.
  
  But, if you choose to learn, you can know. It's called going to school.
  
  That is a well known and understood concept, that if you actually took the time to learn, you would understand.
  
  Yes, it's called, 'the birds and the bees', every hear of it?
  report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Why can't that force just be a pattern of nature? Why does it necessarily have to be personified? Do you really think God took 4 billion years of evolution to put you here on this Earth, right now? Seems easier just to poof you into existence (as you are one of those who think God is omnipotent). Why would billions of creatures have to live and reproduce and die and mutate just to get YOU here?
  report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Ever hear of ATM? Why you Now in that body? You are evidence of a creator outside of yourself!
  And You are the one and only ATM!
  report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Unless he has a genetically exact twin. Not everyone is unique. There are plenty of creatures that reproduce by cloning themselves (asexual reproduction).
  
  Still, evidence of nothing, except for maybe evolution at work.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  No, I am the result of parents, just like you and everyone else.
  
  So what?
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  What facts?
  
  You have not presented an argument.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that you are the only one and special ATM.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  how many I's are on the earth? Thats how many facts I can come up with.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You have not come up with any facts.
  report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That means absolutely nothing.
  report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Once again an online atheist who pretends Godel doesn't exist. O well we can only marvel.
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Still obsessing?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise
  reply report
  76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 60
  Cgenaeaposted 9 years agoin 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!!!!!
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Let's pretend I understood that for a moment
  
  ...well, no, let's not.
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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).
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But, not see it.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure you can, sometimes, if it has some form of coloration to it. Can you see a tornado?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That is sand in the air. Revealing that air.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Some gases have color. Some don't. Air is gas.
  
  Ergo, you can see some forms of air.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  - what forms of Gas are called AIR?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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?
reply report
1. 60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And yet, here it is.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I was just contributing like you did. I was curious about hydrogen off the chart you contributed. Thanks for contributing it.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Hydrogen created the helium and the combo created the stars...
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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
  reply report
  59
  A Troubled Manposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  And, how exactly did the hydrogen create the helium and then the stars?
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 years ago
Maybe the Universe is creating itself right now, as we speak:)
reply report
1. 95
  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  It is apparently expanding as we type; is that not creating itself?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  hmmmm….
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  hhhmm what?
  reply report
60
janesixposted 9 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
reply report
60
janesixposted 9 years ago
I think you are both kind of saying the same thing.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  - it is logical to assume God invented (or became) hydrogen.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Broken record. Do you have anything real to bring to the table? This is getting boring.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Have you no sense of humor, Janesix?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I do. Did you read the last page of the Noah thread? I was pretty hilarious.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'll check it out.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I'm a humorless ice queen.
  
  (that's from my favorite comedy, Evolution.)
  reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I think that maybe we can figure it out. We're pretty smart, for bipeds.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Sure I do. But look what we've learned in the last 200 years.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  ...all based on electricity, fission, fusion and ones and zeros. Big deal.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. But, without a premise, there is no true learning. What is your premise, as far as life?
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what you mean by that?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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."
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Oh. I just want to know why we're here. So I study a little bit of everything that could give a clue to that. I'm a generalist I suppose.
  
  There might not be a purpose, I know, but it seems like there is. I would also accept that there isn't one, if that turns out to be the case.
  
  I will probably never know, I'm not a genius.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  If what we learn becomes relevant (edit) to our existence in real time in some way, it becomes important.
  For instance, I think it is very important to understand the stimulus of human behavior, in general.
  Edit:
  For instance, are humans motivated by love or power, more? I would, in the final analysis say, love.
  reply report
  60
  janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  That's true. But do you mean in a general sense, or on a personal level? (Or both?)
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  Both…Personal first, and then it can be applied to many if not all situations.
  report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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.
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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
reply report
77
Kathryn L Hillposted 9 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
reply report
0
mbuggiehposted 9 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.
reply report
1. 77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin 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 ?
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  But, you did not mentor with someone who worked directly with her as I did. My mentor understood her teachings because she was taught by Montessori herself. Maria Peerzada, (my mentor) was unique in that she had this first hand knowledge. Montessori schools today don't even confer with her words through what she wrote. They have no way of comprehending the true approach. You don' t either. However, If you are busting the dogmas of Montessori, I am all for it.
  That being said, I will never give in and loose this fight. Montessori understood more about children than you will ever know. I recommend sitting quietly with her books, Secret of Childhood, and Absorbent Mind and TRY to contemplate the truths she discovered through scientific observation, research, dedication and love for the child.
  reply report
  0
  mbuggiehposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  You have NO idea with whom I worked or mentored. And you have NO idea as to my knowledge or understanding of education or children. Your knowledge of my experiences, mentors, education, and knowledge are, in fact, less than zero.
  
  If you believe her methods are true and great, then use them.
  
  I wonder, is insulting others part of your cherished Montessori approach to education?
  reply report
  77
  Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  I only said you did not work with someone as I did; someone who worked with Montessori directly. I was extremely blessed as she helped me with my own child.
  
  "Dr. Montessori observed that children experience sensitive periods, or windows of opportunity, as they grow. As their students develop, Montessori teachers match appropriate lessons and materials to these sensitive periods when learning is most naturally absorbed and internalized.
  In early childhood, Montessori students learn through sensory-motor activities, working with materials that develop their cognitive powers through direct experience: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and movement.
  In the elementary years, the child continues to organize his thinking through work with the Montessori learning materials and an interdisciplinary curriculum as he passes from the concrete to the abstract. He begins the application of his knowledge to real-world experiences."
  http://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/I … Montessori
  Does this really look so terrible to you?
  
  What is it you specifically disagree with as far as her approach? Maybe I can help you understand her.
  reply report
2. 76
  Oztinatoposted 9 years agoin 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?
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

It Is Logical to Assume That God Exists.

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

It Is Logical to Assume That God Exists.

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies