Confessional

Quote: FrGamble

Would you do the same at the $75 level for Vatican's efforts to help refugees?

How about the Vatican kick all the bishops out of their luxury homes , sell, and use that money to help the refugees
By me giving money to the Vatican to help refugees is absurd, just supports the luxury of the bishops.
The Vatican has the means to help the refugees, yet they refuse to go all in as they should and look to me?

Quote: Evenbob

No, it won't. Where did you even get that from.

What Is Logical Isn’t Always True

You are correct and I am mistaken. A logical conclusion can come from faulty premises. In which case the conclusion is logical but not true.

Quote:

To make a long story short, unless you already
believe in god, logic alone is never going to
get you to believe. The argument is just too full
of holes.

This is however both illogical and false. Logic is a very easy way to arrive at the concept of God. I've tried to show this before.

A contingent non-necessary thing must have a cause.
The universe and all matter and energy is contingent.
Therefore the universe has a non-contingent necessary cause, that we all commonly refer to as God.

I would love to hear a logical argument that there is no God, oh wait there is no such thing.

Quote: FrGamble

A contingent non-necessary thing must have a cause.

'A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false...Contingent propositions depend on the facts.'

You have no facts, just opinion.

Quote: Evenbob

'A contingent proposition is neither necessarily true nor necessarily false...Contingent propositions depend on the facts.'

I'm not talking about a contingent proposition, but rather a contingent thing like a cat, you, me, or energy. Anything that does not contain its reason for existence in itself.

You should not talk about you, me, or cats. We were not created directly out of nothing, our evolution can be traced back a long way.

It is really about matter/energy, space/time, and whether or not those things required a creator that exists outside of those two things in order to bring them into existence.
Talk about logical impossibilities, that's a big one right there, and using it as an explaination to avoid another logical impossibility is, well, illogical.

Whether or not it started at the big bang is also not important, that is just the start of our current living conditions. There is no logical reason to think that there haven't been other big bangs in a different part of the space outside of our universe.

The impossibility of infinite regression does not cause the regression to stop at "one" - it could be any number.

There is no logical reason to think that "time" isn't infinite, or even "space" - when thinking outside of our own universe.

For us, time and space and expansion started at the big bang, but if you think of the universe as a local phenomenon, there could be other universes, other times and spaces, that exist if you pull the camera back some more. I'm not talking about parallel universes or alternate realities, but just the possibility that things exist or existed outside of our universe.

There are several, perhaps many, explainations about the start of our universe and the start of all existence (they might not br the same event) supported by logic and evidence which at this time can not be disproven. These possibilities, therefore, can not be logically dismissed. Try to keep an open mind.

Quote: Dalex64

You should not talk about you, me, or cats. We were not created directly out of nothing, our evolution can be traced back a long way.

This is kind of the point isn't it. We (as well as cats) are matter or energy if you want to really think about it. Our evolution or causes can be traced not just a long way back, but all the way back. We wouldn't exist without that singularity we refer to in the Big Bang theory.

Quote:

It is really about matter/energy, space/time, and whether or not those things required a creator that exists outside of those two things in order to bring them into existence.
Talk about logical impossibilities, that's a big one right there, and using it as an explaination to avoid another logical impossibility is, well, illogical.

Do you have any reason to suggest that anything that doesn't necessarily exist such as all matter/energy or space/time did not require a cause? It seems to me that it is a logical impossibility to suggest that these things just exist without a cause.

Quote:

Whether or not it started at the big bang is also not important, that is just the start of our current living conditions. There is no logical reason to think that there haven't been other big bangs in a different part of the space outside of our universe.

The impossibility of infinite regression does not cause the regression to stop at "one" - it could be any number.

There is no logical reason to think that "time" isn't infinite, or even "space" - when thinking outside of our own universe.

For us, time and space and expansion started at the big bang, but if you think of the universe as a local phenomenon, there could be other universes, other times and spaces, that exist if you pull the camera back some more. I'm not talking about parallel universes or alternate realities, but just the possibility that things exist or existed outside of our universe.

This is just moving the goal line. It seems to me you are just avoiding the question by positing that things exist or existed outside of our universe. Do you think these things outside of our universe didn't need a cause as well? Why would you think that?

Quote:

There are several, perhaps many, explainations about the start of our universe and the start of all existence (they might not br the same event) supported by logic and evidence which at this time can not be disproven. These possibilities, therefore, can not be logically dismissed. Try to keep an open mind.

I'm trying to keep an open mind and every logical explanation that seems possible ultimately ends in a non-contingent, necessary, spiritual force or being that is all-powerful. Maybe you mean some type of impersonal force that is not the Judeo-Christian notion of God and I can go with you there, but no matter how wide I open my mind I can't ignore logic or reason or science or experience that leads us to an ultimate first cause or unmoved mover.

Quote: FrGamble

It seems to me that it is a logical impossibility to suggest that these things just exist without a cause. .

You want to do what the Church has always
done with everything. Just take a giant cosmic
leap and assume your logic is correct and
then proclaim it so. Like babies are stillborn
because some devil worshiping witch cursed
the mother. That seemed perfectly logical to
the Church for a millennia. Now you want to
say the theory of a big bang is logical proof
for a creator god. It's not.

Talking about a illogical jump; why did you bring the false idea that the Church ever taught such tragedies were the cause of witches? This is false, a reduction ad absurdium, a non sequiter, and has no bearing on the argument at hand. How does what you posted have anything to contribute to the discussion on the existence of God or not? I'm not taking any logical leaps and I'm open to you showing me logically how matter and energy either created itself or sprang into being without a cause. Or if you have any evidence of such a thing happening I would be happy to hear it.

By the way I have never and continue to not say that the Big Bang is logical proof for a creator God. It is evidence that points us towards the universe having a beginning, but it is not proof of God's existence. I feel I have been very clear on this point. Again I beg you to show me any scientific evidence for your conclusion that there is no God or that the universe and all its energy and matter do not have a cause.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm open to you showing me logically how matter and energy either created itself or sprang into being without a cause.

It didn't create itself. It's always been here
in one form or another. It's the mystery
we're all part of. Of course it really isn't
a mystery at all, it just seems like it is
because we have questions. So we make
up thousands of gods to fill in the gaps,
yours is just one of the latest.

The Hindu vedas talk about this very
subject, written thousands of years ago.
It's nothing new, the universe and
existence being here forever. We like
to invent all these religious games while
we all play our different parts thru eternity.
It's much more fun to make a melodrama
out of every moment, and pretend it all
means something super duper. The truth
of it all is so boring and mundane that we
have to do something to while away the
time.

There appear to be at least 6 theories bandied about of how the Universe will end up. And no one is really sure which one is right or most right if any.

Yet FrGamble "knows" the Universe could only be created by a god? Pretty presumptuous.

Big Freeze or heat death
Big Rip
Big Crunch
Big Bounce
False vacuum
Cosmic uncertainty