What is the most logical choice for the source of all?

Question

It is all but impossible to prove the source of all. Yet, for the sake of debate, which of the following choices proves most logical:

1) All in nature existed eternally

2) Something in the natural existance is the source of all that ever existed in the natural, (including by evolution)

3) Something beyond nature, and with NO intelligence, is the source of all in nature

4) Something beyond nature, and with intelligence, is the source of all in nature

5) Some other conclusion, (although no other conclusion can be formed without some sort of redundancy).

Please, explain your logic and reason for your conclusion. Logic and reasoning is key, NOT zealousness.

Thank you for any and all answers.

Answer 1

Number 4 is the only one that makes logical sense to me. If everything has a cause, then what caused cause? The only possible explanation is something outside the natural order as far as i can tell (though I'd be interested in hearing the responses that expound on number 5). And an unintelligent "something beyond nature" doesn't make sense either because nature is made up of so many rules that an unintelligent "something" couldn't have made them up.

Thanks for an interesting question in the religion section for a change!

Answer 2

Of course I can probably make passionate arguments for all these choices (and I probably would if I had the time). Therein lies the problem, because if they all have ample reasoning (evidence probably is not the right word here), they all seem to be equally logical! Of course this is a ridiculous assumption as one will contradict the other, so in a world where they all make sense, none will work, there really is no way to say one theory is so much better then the other theory without just a hint of faith. Therefore, you have two choices, take one choice and defend it fervently, (for the most part) ignoring some equally compelling arguments, or simply state I'm not sure. In lack of total proof, all I can say is I'm definitely the latter.

Answer 3

4) Something beyond nature, and with intelligence, is the source of all in nature

The reason is that we can eliminate all other possibilities.
Nature could not have existed eternally. The law of entropy states that all systems eventually deteriorate. So the universe can be old but it cannot be eternal. It is not possible. This eliminate the first 2 choices.

The precision of the universe rules out the 3 choice. From the structure of atoms to the order of our solar system, our galaxy, etc.

The only other possibility is 4. Some may have trouble accepting this because they have not observed God. But since they were created by God it is logical to assume that he made us with certain abilities of observation, and without other abilities. So if we were not designed to see him directly, it would stand to reason that we cannot. So our lack of irrefutable evidence is to be expected.

Answer 4

Hello friend,
Your question has attracted my attention.
Finally a question with words spelled correctly, cohesive thought,
and one intended to provoke thought rather than anger.
Too bad there is'nt a "Best Question" catagory. (Take note
Yahoo)

Sorry friend, I was momentarily stunned there.

Now if I may, permit me to challenge the underlying premise of your question. Which seems to me to be, that everything is of "nature", or has a natural origin.
But I think I know what you're really asking, so I'll answer accordingly.

Logically I have to reject # 1 and 2 on the basis of what I like to call the law of first cause. If you see a ball rolling down the street,
something had to start the ball rolling... something had to make, form, or create the ball and the street... something had to cause, design or otherwise initiate the "natural force" we call gravity that
keeps the ball and the street from drifting off into space!! ... something had to form, devise, design or dare I say "create" even the space into which these objects would drift!

(later, I'll tell you what started the ball rolling)

I hope you see the point.
There must be a first cause, a point of origin of all that is.
Your #3 is self contradictory,(as was #1 also), in that you've mixed concepts. In #1 you used the word "eternally" which has roots in the "supernatural" and is by definition outside of time.
In #3 the suggestion of "Something beyond nature" must also point to the supernatural, and for something to be "greater than natural" (super) it would certainly have intellegence. #3...is void.

Your #4 points to a logical conclusion of the possibilities you've offered. Should anyone with an honest mind consider your choices, and then reject #4, there could only be one possible explanation for that rejection...

That person would have to be the very entity they would deny exists. Because, in order to deny Something beyond nature with intellegence that is the source of all that's known,
that person would HAVE to KNOW every possible thing there is to KNOW in ALL of the universe in order to say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that somewhere, anywhere out there, beyond what is seen with the eye, beyond what can be tested in a lab, beyond the limits of "natural" human intellect, in order to make such a claim and have such knowledge, they would therefore be the God they say does not exist.

What a person!
Now, if you'll pardon my zealousness, I have a really Good Book that makes this statement:
"For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned" Matthew 12:37
(remember the rolling ball?)
Meaning, God Almighty started the ball rolling, He is the Creator and Originator of all that is. There is something mentioned about that, I believe in Genesis 1:1.
And the above quote from Jesus Christ, (Who IS God), says this: With the words of your lips (from your heart) , you confess / profess / accept Jesus as your personal Savior, you will be "JUSTIFIED" (made just if I'd never sinned) or by your words (denying HIs existance) you will be CONDEMNED.
Eternally separated from Him who loved you enough to die for you. Hell is worse than you think.

Sorry friend this turned into a book, but God is worth my time, and I pray yours and all who may read this answer.
God Himself is the ONLY answer that really matters.
God belss you and add back the years you've spent reading this.

2 Tim. 2:7

Answer 5

All in nature existed eternally is the most logical with a huge caviat. Eternally is a flawed concept when contemplating the source of all as you say. Time is a dimension in our universe. Time doesn't necessarily exist "everywhere." So, while we search for the beginning of everything, we need to understand in the context of time, we will only find our beginning. It is very logical, although not completely intelligible to us, to say there is no beginning or end. An event requires time to measure when it happened. So if you take time out of the equation, you find that everything just is.

Answer 6

Logic can never penetrate and realize this answer. Never. Why? Because those who have had direct experiences that resolve these questions emphasize the inherent non-duality of existence. Given that all of what we can think, conceive, imagine is dualistic -- and given that we ourselves are dualistic -- a dualistic, logical mind will just create more and more mechanisms and beliefs and 'proofs' and suppositions that moves the person further away from the realization. The only way to resolve it is by direct experience. Everything said here in response to your question will just be things that tantalize our minds, one way or another.

Answer 7

Everything is perfect. Even imperfection is perfect, and what you thought of as imperfect is a perfect example of what you thought it was not. The word imperfect should be struck from the dictionary as there is no such thing as imperfection. Perfection is the source for all, it cannot be anything else.
THINK ON MY FIRST SENTENCE AND YOU WILL HAVE THE KEY FOR ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS.
When I realised this, a whole weight was lifted from my psychological intellect and has been the source of my living a completely stress free life. I have no fear, I have no anxious moments, and an amazing freedom.
p.s. best question ever....COOL'man'!

Answer 8

I want to say, #2 makes a lot of logical sense. When you watch documentaries and such, ome tell you, and eventually the sun will die and swallow the earth. The sun could then blow up and the cycle would start all over again in the formatio of planets and life...

The energy was there, in some form, as to how it was poked out of equilibrium is unknown.

Answer 9

Read Godel, Escher, Bach: The Eternal Golden Braid (Hofsteder)
Mind and Nature (Bateson)

These two books address the idea of intelligence emerging from evolving recursive complexity.

Answer 10

4) going by the big bang theory, while science can explain everything that happened, they cant explain it right at the instance it took place, while time was at zero. This is because time didnt exist before the big bang, and since time includes all cause and effect phenomina, something(God), had to be working above the laws of physics to be able to cause the big bang. this answer is relevent if you believe the big bang of course, i may or may not, but i do believe in God.