Do universal logic absolutes remove the power of choice?

[cardw]

There has been a phrase that has been used to point to evidence that there is a god and Christianity makes the most sense.

It is "The Universal Laws of Logic"

Essentially the claim is that these laws wouldn't exist without a god.

So what would be the effect if these laws were indeed universal?

Let's take the core logic rule of cause and effect. It is a primary one used to claim that god exists. The universe is the effect which requires a cause which believers identify as god.

Now if this law is universal then it applies to every case. If this is true then you are arguing for a mechanistic universe. There can be no manifestation without a cause.

This essentially removes personal responsibility and free choice. If it is universal then there is no action that we take that doesn't have a pre-existing cause. And within the Christian belief system, if we keep going back far enough we eventually have to come to god since god created everything. This means that god is the cause of sin.

We remove consciousness. Consciousness becomes an illusion that is only a complex mechanism that is operating on these universal logical laws of cause and effect.

This pretty much negates much of Christianity or it establishes Calvinism.

[oldsailor29]

I think there is a lot we do not understand about free choice and determinism. I believe cause and effect does lead us back to God. I would not argue that God did not create sin. In fact I believe He did. But I do not see the need to remove our consciousness of ourselves. I think we can be conscious of ourselves without selfishness. That is to say, I believe we can be aware that we do exist without deep and labored analyses of our existence. Of course, if there is no God, then there is no reason for us to exist, and perhaps we don't?

[cardw]

Well, obviously a lot of people function quite well without analysis.

I guess some have said that the uncontemplated life isn't worth living or maybe the Hokey Pokey IS what it's all about.

I guess we can add another one to the list.

Why do we exist?

Deep and mysterious. Answer God

[cardw]

Well, I think faith is the only option when we don't know everything.

I have faith, but it is a conditional faith.

I think we use faith to function until we have a better explanation, otherwise one can get paralyzed by inaction.

I agree that not all of life is explained by logic and I don't think it has to do with a mind being worldly or secular.

The function of what most people call spirituality is to provide meaning for what logic tells us is a meaningless life. Once a being has feelings a whole set of different aspects of awareness become available.

I think that Christianity is only one of many ways of engaging with the unknown.

[cardw]

I think for me, Jesus certainly has some new ways of approaching life that can be defended rationally and empirically. The problem for me is when I have to accept the idea that this Jesus has to die so that I can saved.

It's not a pride thing, because I was a believer for a long time and if I thought it worked even pragmatically I would accept Jesus as my Savior. Plus all the mental gymnastics I had to put myself through to maintain that belief simply became unbearable.

It is the immaturity of a god who needs to have a sacrifice or can't figure out any other way to balance the universe without the torture and killing of himself that makes it unbelievable to me.

We would never accept that behavior in humans, so I would think even less so with our gods. It makes far more sense to me to realize that what we make up as gods are simply super versions of immature people. Just as we see this in the Greek and Roman god myths, I think we can see this in Yahweh.

And the Christian myth of Jesus and his sacrifice are continuing to evolve to reflect modern understandings. I don't think a lot of the softer more loving theology is really in the text.

Plus we have much more information on how the Bible was put together and the influences on early Christianity. And this information paints a far different picture than what I hear from mainline Christianity.

I think what we really have today is churchianity.

[cardw]

dgrimm,

I think you are talking about faith in the inspiration of the bible.

I think we have to have some system to be able to choose which inspirational book we put faith in or faith in any book at all.

Or I think it's probable that we choose the book or religion we were exposed to as children.

[olger]

Nothing is more plainly taught in Scripture than that God is in no wise responsible for sin and suffering. It is astonishing that a professed believer could dishonor God by bringing such a charge against Him.

regards,

oG

[oldsailor29]

olger - it is not a charge, just recognition of God's sovereignty.

[olger]

Have you read the book "Great Controversy?"

og

[Woody]

I've never heard of that book og. But I have read the book entitled "The Great Controversy". :)

[oldsailor29]

olger - I think I have read "Great Controversy." But why would you ask? I thought you were referring to scripture.

[Bravus]

My problem is with the premise of the question: I don't believe universal logic absolutes exist, and they are one of the weakest and poorest arguments for the existence of God.

I guess you're trying to show the internal inconsistencies of a particular perspective, Richard, which makes sense, but for me it just disappears as a question at a much earlier stage.

(And then, of course, I believe God is outside/inside/through spacetime and not bound by its laws at all, including laws of cause and effect)

[Twilight]

If that is the case, then why have you just expressed a "universal law of logic".

Because the idea that there is no "universal law of logic", is a universal law of logic...

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Or are you arguing for a "universal law of illogic"?

:-)

[cardw]

Bravus,

You're right, the question breaks down if you don't accept that there are universal laws of logic.

I haven't found any evidence that any exist and if they do exist I think they basically lead to Calvinism or a pre-determined existence, which I don't think anybody wants.

[cardw]

Intervention in the case of the law of gravity from a human perspective is mature.

The difference is that god has the ability to change the law itself. And this same god seems to break his own laws on a fairly regular basis. The killing of innocent children in the flood is one example. He seems to accept collateral damage on a fairly large scale and apparently with his unlimited power can't seem to target only those who deserve it.

It just seems rather contrived which would be consistent with a man made god.

[cardw]

The "universal laws of illogic" are expressed in the idea of chaos theory.

Here is brief introduction

Chaos Theory

This expresses that outcomes are sensitive to initial conditions, point of view, how something is measured, and perception. These aren't always reconciled to a system of logic, thus chaos theory.

And this doesn't even take into account human factors such as love, desire, likes, dislikes, and beliefs.

What is the equation for belief? Does belief follow a universal law of logic?

If it does follow a universal law of logic, then believers have no basis for choice.

[Twilight]

Are you personally ascribing to unversal laws of illogic Cardw?

[Twilight]

Have you found any evidence they do not exist Cardw?

[Twilight]

Have you ever considered that the parents take responsibility for their children.

Therefore when they make sinful decisions, they include their innocent children in that?

But this also works the other way.

So when a Christian child dies, God can say they are saved based on the parents relationship.

But when a non-believers child dies, God has to apply the same rule.

Maybe it is the parents who should be taking responsibility for the children and their eternal welfare.

Maybe, just maybe it is "mans fault".

I will start a new thread to discuss this.

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/344916.html

[cardw]

Mark,

The topic of this thread is do universal laws of logic negate the power of choice?

What universal law of logic describes why people believe or don't believe?

[Twilight]

First you would have to establish that mankind actually has "free will".

I would hold that they do not have unrestricted free will.

But they have "free will" within a set of choices.

Mark :-)

[cardw]

It doesn't matter if the free will is limited or not. The existence of absolute universal laws of logic negate any kind of free will.

Free will of any kind (limited or unlimited) would negate the law of cause and effect.

Again, what is the universal law of logic that determines what a person believes?

[Twilight]

How does the existance of universal laws of logic remove free will?

Please explain your position. :-)

Mark