@Obi:
Since you apparently missed my response to you, I'll repost what I responded here. The other stuff you mentioned has too many details and would only serve to derail the discussion, though I'd be happy to do so some other time. After all, if you want to have a debate/discussion, it MUST stay on topic.



Granted, I phrased that poorly (like what I said about internet debates). That's not the Bible's main purpose. It's main purpose is how to get out of the mess we created by breaking said rules.
Sorry about the obscure word choice. My bad.


"And as all we know is subsequent to logic, either God acted contrary to those laws of logic OR invented those laws as he said, and if it's the latter, we must assume He can violate or change the laws if he created them, as if he created them he is therefore above and previous to them.

"Eitehr way, something from nothing is a logical fallacy."

I think we have a confusion of terms. By "something" in the phrase "something from nothing," I refer to things such as space and time and energy and matter and humans, not universal absolutes.

There are definitely things that have existed from eternity for eternity aside from God.

For instance, you've heard the phrase "God is good." If God has existed from all eternity for all eternity, so has goodness.
Hence, goodness is not a created thing. Rather, it exists simply because it is a characteristic of something else eternal. In fact, as God exists independently of time (a created thing), goodness exists independent of time, having its final foundation on the one absolute: God.
Logic is like that. God is logical. Therefore, since God exists, logic exists. It always has, and always will.

Yes, if God had created logic out of thin.....nothing, the creation of logic would be extra-logical ( I wouldn't necessarily say ILlogical, since, as logic wouldn't have existed then, there would be no logic to apply to the situation; but that's a tangent). However, He did not create logic out of thin nothing. It has always been around.

See what I'm saying?

If we grant that, however, and say that logic has always been, the inevitable question is...

From whence came logic?

The argument with God is that this is an entity and so it either created itself or has always been or what have, you, but because it's an entity we--or at least those who would advocate for such an entity--can employ it as a cause of logical laws.

"Laws" be defniniton must pertain to SOMETHING, laws in a vacuum or nothinges is absurd, ie, a law prohibiting ice skating in the middle of the Saudi desert (and pretend there's no rink or anything, you know what I'm getting at...)

If logic preceded God, what can cause logic, as laws must need something to apply TO.
If logic came at the same time as God, what caused BOTH?

Logic causes god and God logic? If that were the case logical laws would then be invoked to apply to something it was to form itself and so would be a creating force, which logic is NOT, and God would be subject to laws which, even ignoring the fact that if they are laws they would possibly limit his power and so not make him all-powerful, only have meaning if He exists, but still ahve no logical reason--and thus no logical meaning--for their existence.

It seems circular: God gives Logic meaning, logic gives rationality to Creation, Creation gives meaning to God, but before God can imbue meaning upon that Creation he needs Logic, which needs God, which needs Creation, which needs Logic, which needs God...

I think Baumhaeuer's point was that these (God and goodness/logic etc.) are extra physical entities and absolutes and as such do not necessarily need causes.

We think in terms of cause and effect because we live in a causal universe. It is not therefore necessarily true (it can neither be proved or disproved) that something outside the physical causal universe we experience must be bound by causality the way we are.

They do not need prexistence of something to cause their existence, they all prexist into eternity past.

Goodness and logic, love and justice, holiness etc. as concepts in our human understanding are not separate from God but are attributes of God that we have to separate from Him and describe with other words to identify parts of a prexisting unified whole that our finite minds cannot comprehend in entirety. Goodness is not defined, caused or created by God, but goodness IS God in a sense. We define God by the concept goodness but it should rather be the other way around, define the concpet by the entity who embodies that attribute.

Like Lief said, Obi: God did not MAKE logic. It's an ATTRIBUTE of Him. There was not a time when one existed but not the other. Neither preceded the other. Please read over my argument a few more times and respond again.

Just to throw this back open, if it is the case that God is not bound by causality but the universe is, why is that the case?

If God is not bound by causality, and that doesn't cause any great problems for him, why would he decide, when designing the universe, that causality would be a feature of his creation?

What do you mean "bound by causality?"

*mean by

follow those who seek the truth not those who find it, is my stance on the afterlife and most spiritual matters. interesting thought is what if death is an asymptote

Interesting question Jamiet99uk, but would you agree that an answer to the question of "Why, if God is not bound by causality, did He create a universe bound by causality?" would be pure conjecture?

I fully admit that my position about an intelligent designer is a conjecture, same as the Big Crunch theory or any other "origins of the universe" theory.

I can posit other questions, which have only conjecture answers, as well about the "Why's" in God's design choices..
"Why did God create humanity...
with a free will?
in His own image?
as finite beings?"
and so on and so forth...

My answer thus, has no basis in anything really (as far as science, logic, etc go) , but here's my best shot:

I think God created a Universe bound by causality because He is a jealous, selfish God, bent on glorifying Himself, and a causal universe served His ultimate plan.

(That's a serious answer btw, I'm not making fun.)

Death is an asymptote as in you never really die you only get closer to death from your perspective.

@ Baumhauer: "What do you mean "bound by causality?" "

When I mentioned God not being bound by causality, what I mean is that if causation implies that the universe was created, and if God is that creator, and if he, himself, was not created, then it follows that the laws of causation / causality ("everything must have a cause") must not apply to him.

Bear in mind that this is all a hypothetical scenario. I don't actually believe that God exists - I'm an atheist.


@ Leif: "Interesting question Jamiet99uk, but would you agree that an answer to the question of "Why, if God is not bound by causality, did He create a universe bound by causality?" would be pure conjecture?"

Yes, of course it would. Any conversation about what God is like has to be pure conjecture, since there is no verifiable evidence that God exists at all.

"I think God created a Universe bound by causality because He is a jealous, selfish God, bent on glorifying Himself, and a causal universe served His ultimate plan."

Wow. So, just to get this straight... you believe in God, but you think he's an asshole?

Haha, kinda seems that way at face value, no? But when I read the Bible, that's the gist of the story as I follow it.

The thing is, if God isn't the most important thing to God, then why would He be worth following or worshiping? If we were the most important thing to God (which is where I believe much of Christianity misinterprets scripture) then logically, doesn't that make us more important than God?

The Bible repeatedly states the God is a jealous God, and much of the rules and commands in the Bible have to do with Whom all worship, honor, and glory are due, and it isn't mankind.

Frankly, it makes more sense to me that if God is of Ultimate worth, that He be most concerned about Himself and rightfully so. Since the Bible teaches that He is a good God, then it is for our benefit and our joy that He demands that we worship Him only.

Probably doesn't make much sense, but hope that clears up what I mean a little.

I have a conjecture question for you now:

In the Big Crunch theory, if I understand it right (and let me know if this is not the theory of origins of the Universe that you subscribe to and I won't press you on it), there have been an infinite series of Big Bangs followed by reverse Big Bangs (or collapses or whatever) that extend back on an infinite scale and will continue to happen indefinitely into the future?

My question is, where do the physical laws of thermodynamics come into play? If energy as we know it is bound within the dimmensions of the physical universe and thus total energy remains constant and the Big Crunch universe model is the only perpetual motion machine in existence, then one of the laws of thermo is satisfied. Total energy remaining constant is only a part of thermodynamic laws however, as they also state that the energy gradient is tending toward zero, or equilibrium, so doesn't a infinite Big Crunch universe violate this thermodynamic law?

Again, none of this is verifiable, and thus all conjecture, but how is the argument that causality holds for all infinity any different than the argument that thermodynamics holds for all infinity? Wouldn't the argument that we see causal processes at work in our universe thus causal processes must have always been at work, also apply to the fact that we see the laws of thermodynamics working toward a state of equilibrium in all cases in our univserse lead us to conclude that there was a disturbance at some point in the past that caused the inequilibrium and that everything is settling toward equilibrium again? Note that these two arguments following the same line of logic are at face value mutually exlcusive.