Halo and the Bible

     I've recently treated myself by investing on a video game, "The Master Chief Collection" to be exact. Halo is a video game series set in the 26th century centered around the main protagonist Master Chief, also Known as John and Spartan 117. It's a series that I have been in engrossed with for a very long time. Halo:CE was one of the first video games I've played. "The Master Chief Collection" allowed me to play through all 4 titles that center around Master Chief in a chronological order. Now, the interesting part is, I've picked up on very intriguing details within the story. To show what I picked up on is the aim of this post.

"For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." - John 1:17

Master Chief with the AI Cortana

     The first thing I picked up on is this: John 117. Master Chief's first name is John and his Spartan code is 117. Now, the biblical verse may not look relevant. However, it seems to point at the relationship between Cortana and Master Chief. Cortana, an artificial intelligence, is in a sense literally a law - a set of codes. She (it?) always knows what to do and how to do them and Master Chief executes them flawlessly. Further, through this hint, Master Chief is placed on a position of a savior, possibly a god.

I am a monument to all your sins.

     The second thing I picked up on is this: the Flood. The Flood are parasitic race that consumes organic beings to multiply its numbers. Now here's the interesting part. The Gravemind, a sort of hive mind of all Flood, says to Master Chief: "I am a monument to all your sins". The Flood seems to point at the flood in the Old Testament.



     The third thing I picked up on is this: the Covenant. The Covenant is an alliance of sentient aliens that worship an ancient race called Forerunners. The Covenant's political structure  centers around the Prophets. The Prophets are political and also religious elites. They oversee the worship of Forerunners and the salvation of the members of the Covenant.

The Prophet of Truth (a false prophet)

     Now this salvation method offered to the Covenant by the Prophets is the activation of Halo rings. Halo rings are designed to wipe out all life forms in the galaxy to deprive the parasitic Flood of their food source. However, the Covenant Prophets misinterpret this purging process as a means to salvation. They call it the Great Journey. By providing a false means to salvation, it is adequate for them to be called False Prophets.



"And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who was in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur." - Revelation 19:20

The Didiact (the Antichrist)

     Which leads me to my fourth point. Master Chief, a good protagonist that he is, defeats the three main Prophets: Regret, Truth, and Mercy. As stated in the verse above, the downfall of false prophet is revealed. But what of the beast? The beast refers to the Antichrist. In Halo, the Antichrist is shown to be the Didact, a Forerunner villain who was imprisoned by its own race thousands of years ago. The Covenant, in the fourth installment, bows down before him and worships him. Of course, Master Chief, being a good protagonist once more, kills him. It should be noted that, Master Chief, with the aid of Cortana, literally captures him, and then the Didact is literally thrown alive into something that resembles a lake of fire.

       The fifth and final thing I noticed is the Ark. The Ark is a kind of remote control that activates all seven Halo rings. There are two things to note here. The Ark (and Halos) is designed to be habitable. It was designed to begin seeding life forms to repopulate the galaxy after the purging of the Flood is over. Now, this is parallel to Noah's Ark. The other point is that it is parallel to the story of Jericho in the Old Testament. Jericho's walls fall down after the Israelite carry the Ark of the Covenant for seven days, once per day. Although the story of Jericho does not have anything to do with the main story, but it seems that the writers of Halo just went for seven Halo rings to represent how many times the Israelite went around the city.

     It was very interesting to see how a video game incorporated so much of the bible in creating its unique world. I'm sure there are other points I've missed (there are points I have not mentioned), but it is clear that Master Chief is intended to play the role of Christ in this saga. The saga does not follow the bible to the letter, but there are many elements that cannot be neglected. In a culture riddled by anti-religious contexts, this was quite a surprise on my part.

Immorality of Abortion: Philosophical Arguments

     In our modern society poisoned by relativism and emotivism, virtues are things of distant past. People have forgotten the ways by which we should live. The people's minds are softened through material comforts and their passions. To uncloud their minds, proponents of virtue must tirelessly advocate against what moderns would call "progress". Little do they know that their notion of progress is a path back to barbarity, a path embracing carnal desires more than reason. It is a tedious work to convince those who are clouded by their passions. One of these barbaric notions on the rise is the notion that abortion is not immoral, a claim made by consequence of inadequate understanding of morality. To refute such a claim is the aim of this post.

     The lamentable feature of the current condition of moral debate in the political arena is the fact that hardly anyone can explain their moral position fully through metaphysical expositions (save for religious few with good catechismal experience). A morality of something cannot be held without a metaphysical assumption for the very concept of morality is metaphysical. There are those saying "a woman can do whatever she wants with her body" and "a man should not tell her what to do with her body" and simply be content with not substantiating them with metaphysical assumptions; statements as such are nonsensical once one digs deeper. A legitimate moral debate can only be conducted once an accountable metaphysical system is established and understood by the opponent. Otherwise, the debate merely becomes a shouting match. Thus I argue from metaphysics to a certain extent (for simplicity's sake I do not go into explaining a system). I hope to use certain metaphysical truths most rational agents hold to be self-evident to convince that abortion is immoral.

Values

1) If a thing exists, then it has values.

2) Fetus exists.

3) Fetus has values.

It should not take a master of metaphysics to understand that all things that exist, be it material or immaterial, have their own worth. For example, apples have many values: mathematical structure, the probability of it feeding organic beings, the probability of it simply being nutrition for the ground, and the probability of it producing more apple trees. Some of the fetus's values are also of physical mathematical quantity: height, width, age, etc. It is biological also in that it was life as biology defines. However, among its many values, the potentiality of life is one of them. One cannot deny that an apple has a potential to fulfill one or more of the potentialities of an apple unless he is deficient in the process of logic.  As it is with apple's potentiality, a fetus also has a potential to become a full grown human being and live as a fully grown person. Such is the order of the cosmos.

Justice

The virtue of justice is one that most human beings vaguely get through "gut-feeling". But because of our prejudicial nature, this knowledge can be at times be tainted. Emotionally, many of the pro-abortion advocates feel that abortion is in no way unjust. Perhaps they are ignorant of justice. So here I define justice clearly: Justice is giving to each what is due.

From the previous argument this follows:

1) If a thing exists, then its values are due to it.

2) Fetus exists.

3) Fetus's values are due to fetus.

From the definition of justice, this follows, coupled with two basic moral assumptions:

1) Certain values have moral significance.
2) Life is of moral significance.

1) If a thing's morally significant value is willfully removed, then is is an unjust (immoral) act.

2) A woman aborts a child, willfully removing its value of potentiality of life.

3) The act of abortion is an unjust act.

Now it is established that fetuses have potentiality of life. As justice demands, its potential must be given to it regardless of one's desire. If one violates the principle of justice and aborts the fetus, it is undeniably true that such an action is immoral. For all intents and purposes, therefore, in respecting the potentiality of life, one should treat fetuses as if they are birthed human being.

This logic is consistent with why we ought not to murder someone. A psychopathic murderer may say that he is doing no wrong for he is simply giving death which is due to all human beings eventually. Although it is true that the actuality of death is due to all living things, if something has an actuality of life, it also has the potentiality to live out longer in temporal terms. When we speak of life, we always think in terms of both present and future living state... We think murder wrong because it rids the potentiality of life  from both present and beyond a particular moment. Conversely, we think charity virtuous for it ensures the veracity of the potentiality of life. To be logically consistent, then, it is righteous to think abortion wrong.

Possible Objection
An objection would go like this: One of my desk's carbon molecule has a chance to become human, however slim the chance may be. Do I treat it as if it has a potentiality of human life? It appears absurd to think so.

I reply that "treatment" in the above objection implies actions with intent. Human emotional/intentional virtues apply only to subjects, not objects. It would be absurd for moral principles by which humans ought to abide extend further than what our inclinations are capable of. In the case of carbon molecule, an emotional inclination does not apply (insofar it does not have immediate personal benefit; take jewels for example) . Human inclination toward emotion/intent toward an object increases (animals) as objects appear more to be like a subject. For example, a gardener loves his flowers but not his dirt. And the love for his flowers is naturally less than for his own daughter. Fetus is in a way similar to a growing flower; a parent may not feel anything toward a tiny sperm cell at first, but she gets to love the cell more as it grows older to cultivate further the potentiality of life. And when it reaches a stage of life, a human being in a correct state of mind feels guilty to even think of aborting the fetus. It can thus be said that a correct emotion/intent should be posed toward fetuses, however weak the emotion/intent may be as the principle of virtues dictate.

Another objection, a rather popular one among pro-abortionists, would go like this: It is a stretch to say that fetus should be treated as if it is a fully grown human being.

I reply that such an argument is unsubstantiated and requires further explanation as to how it is a "stretch". This statement has no rational grounds on which its legitimacy can stand; it only contains subjective emotional judgment.

Reproductive Right

Many so-called "pro-choice" advocates scream that not allowing abortion violates a woman's reproductive rights. To be completely blunt, such a claim is but a babble; it's a lie told by them to justify whatever they want to be true. To them I say that what they want to be true is not the same as what is true.

In terms of justice, a society should allow certain actions, for some of them are inherently due to a human being. As far as reproductive rights go, a woman has full control of her body when engaging in a reproductive action - sex. Nobody is prohibiting a woman or forcing her from having sex, save for criminal cases.

If a woman willfully decides to partake in a reproductive act, it is just to have her take responsibility for that act, for the consequences following the act is due to her. 

Morals are how human beings are ought to act. Human beings are ought to act in accordance to the moral law, and the moral law dictates that values are given to each thing and ought to remain as such. To remove or overreach values is to be contradictory to how things ought to be, therefore immoral.

An objection can go like this: A woman ought to be in control of her body; she can do whatever she wants.

I reply that the objection is a true statement. But it is in no way an objection to immorality of abortion. Human beings, by their free will, has the capacity of ought to be in control and able to do whatever is in their power. However, the able is not ought. Take for example that I wish to "take control" of my body and eat whatever and however I desire. Would this gluttonous act me moral? Certainly not, for I failed to give myself a proper nutritional value due to me. And, as I have said before, one should not rid of fetus's value even when one is able to do so and even if it is supposedly a part of a woman's body (which is not... the semen that helped the creation of the fetus is a foreign element to a woman's body; also, a fetus extracts nutrients from a woman on its own; the woman does not give nutrients to them voluntarily). By way of the virtues, one ought not to abort.

To sum up, it can be seen how abortion is immoral/unjust in two different ways:

1) It takes away what is due to a fetus: the potentiality of life

2) It takes away what is due to a woman: the consequences of her choice entailed by her free will

    There are many more things that can be said of what's stated above. It would require a lengthy metaphysical exposition to get down to the core of it. However, I think, most of it is expanding on what is clear to us.

Sadly, this sort of argument will never enter the political arena out of the ignorance of our politicians and emotivist self that has come to pass in our modern world. People take in the false moral values of the mainstream media thoughtlessly. It is lamentable how people ignorantly argue morals when in fact they know not how to argue about morals, only shouting metaphysically unsubstantiated claims. What has mankind learned from Plato's dialogues? It has been two and a half thousand years since his passing yet those who do not know act as if they do and act as if they are better than the sages and saints of the past.

To Feel or to Think?

     During class discussions, I oftentimes hear sentences starting with "I feel like". I have often asked myself: Why do they say it? Why do they not say "I think"? Then I observed the world around me. The world is constantly telling me to feel. From advertisements promoting carnal desires to hit songs, the culture around me is telling me to follow my senses and my emotions. And I have found that, by observing the behaviors of people around me, most live according to sense than reason.

     What baseness is this? We consider ourselves the masters of vast knowledge we possess, but we have abandoned reason. Most people's capacity to think only follows their passions, not the other way around. They pursue objects that fill their carnal desires and make moral judgments based on their emotions. This gives me great fear as to where the human race is headed. If only I had the strength and charisma required, I would gather them and set them on the correct path to humanity.

A Short Compilation of Arguments for the Existence of God

     I have already written on this matter as my first post. However, I must admit that, out of my underdeveloped writing skills (as it is now), I failed to deliver in a clear manner. Now I try again. If there are corrections to be made, I welcome you to point them out.

     Modern skeptics and atheists hold that, perhaps out of their dense minds, faith and reason are incompatible. And indeed these modern thinkers convinced the vast majority of the masses. They even converted to their opinion those Christians who abandoned the apostolic tradition to conform to the ways of the world.  It is a laughable thing that even some Christians believe that believing in God is irrational. To testify to this claim, I have heard many of my Protestant peers say: "Theology is not about logic". To this, I thought necessary to demonstrate that faith is not incompatible with reason by providing some arguments for the existence of God. 

In my opinion, these are the three easiest arguments to understand. Ancient philosophers thought  the existence of Supreme Being obvious. I should say that the burden of proof has always been to the nonbelievers. 

Argument 1
1) If a thing is in motion, then that thing must have a mover.
2) It is self-evident that the universe is in motion.
∴ The universe must have a mover.

And we call this mover of the universe the Creator, the Prime Mover, or God.

Argument 2
1) If there is a finite being, then there must be an infinite being by necessity.
2) This universe is finite.
∴ There must be an infinite being by necessity 

And we call this infinite being that exists by necessity God. 

Notice that, in order for a finite value to be counted as a value, there must be by necessity values higher than it.

Example: <----------------->  Consider the line with arrows going both sides as a representative of the spectrum of numbers. Of course, the arrows extend far beyond what is given in reality. Within the line, there are finite values. But for these finite values to exist, there must be the line that is infinity.

For you scientific people, this argument should be similar to the argument for dark matter. One cannot empirically prove dark matter, yet it must exist by necessity for this material world to operate.

Argument 3
1) All the things that can be measured have real things either material or immaterial to base the measurement from.
2) If there are things in existence that can be measured in degrees of perfection, then there must be a real epitome of perfection by necessity.
3) There are things in existence that can be measured in degrees of perfection
∴ There must be a real epitome of perfection by necessity.

And we call this real epitome of perfection God. 

Objection
     An objection to the three prepositions would go like this: It seems that the existence of what you would prefer to call God can be proven. However, it is not sufficiently proven that it has a consciousness. Be it a prime mover, the infinite or the real epitome of perfection, a mechanical thing with no consciousness cannot be called God, for it is but a mere law like that of physics.

Reply
To the objection above I answer:

1) If a thing comes to be, then the prerequisite of that being is a mind.
2) The temporal universe we reside in came to be.
∴ There must be by necessity, as a prerequisite of the temporal universe, an eternal mind.

     For a creation, the prerequisite of it coming into being is always a mind. For a painting, there must be a mind of a painter. For a computer, there must be a mind of an engineer. This temporal universe was created by the Prime Mover as established in Argument 1. And because there can be no movers before the Prime Mover, it is necessary that the Prime Mover has a mind. Thus it is established that God is a being of consciousness.

The Importance of Presentation

     Man, by nature, tend to judge the values of a thing by its observable presentation. When a food smells terrible or looks disgusting, we tend to not eat it. When we see a person being aggressive, we tend to think that the person is aggressive often. With this in mind, when working for a cause, one must be weary of his presentation to be more effective with accomplishimg his cause.

Putin being "attacked" by Femen activists. He doesn't mind

     I have seen many times how presentation is crucial. For example, many people have a negative view of feminism. Some have a notion that feminism is an ideal that strives toward female superiority, and some have a notion that proponents of feminism are full of raging, man-hating, radical women. Feminists are of course offended by such views. But can they really blame other people of thinking in such ways?

 There certainly are women with aggressive and unacceptable social behaviors who identify themselves as feminists. When promoting women's rights, they sometimes try to make cases that have nothing to do with gender issues into a gender issue. They are blind to truths based on reason. When their reason fails, they call others out as being sexist or being "overly judgmental". Seeing these kinds of people, can you blame someone for having misinformed view against feminism?

    On a personal note, I have once made a comment toward these women with unacceptable behaviors. And sure enough, they called me out as a misogynist. How are they so unable to take a constructive criticism? Should they, who criticize old and barbaric practices of human race in the past, be available to criticism? Why do they hinder progress of a good cause with their misdeeds?

I'm sure you've seen this plenty of times.

     Christianity is something that I have often seen to be misunderstood by many. Many call Christians hateful bigots and uneducated fools blind to scientific facts. Some believe that Christianity is a cult, full of brainwashed idiots. Christians are of course offended by such beliefs. But I cannot blame them for holding such views against Christianity.

     There are people who identify themselves as Christians that use slogan "God hates fags", displaying socially unacceptable and hateful behaviors. There are people who identify themselves as Christians who believe that the earth is only 7000 years old, and that the earth is the center of the universe. There are also pastors that use peer pressure to force people into unwavering blind faith, making the church nothing short of being a cult. When these people are prominent, I cannot blame people who hold negative views toward Christianity.

     Christian faith teaches love, not hate. It teaches that science cannot be in contradiction to the faith, for God has created the universe to have sciences available to us in the first place. And also, Christianity offers many roads to faith. Rational reason for faith is offered to people who are skilled in the art of logic, and emotional reason for faith is also offered to people who are more emotional than logical. Why, then, do some pastors use brainwashing techniques to have people submit to blind faith when they should be making intellectual and emotional source of faith readily available? I cannot say.When they identify themselves as Christians, it appalls me to see how they contradict the most basic foundation of the faith: reflecting Christ.

     Presentation is indeed important. It can clearly be seen how people can judge an ideal by people who identify themselves with the ideal. With the knowledge that people tend to judge the values of a thing by its observable presentation, one should work to possess proper presentation when identifying himself with an ideal. Polishing civility and virtue, I think, is a good start.

Casual Sex: Moral Implications

Objective

     Through the trend of postmodernism, many virtues that persisted through the ages and different cultures are being discarded. Sexual restraint is one of them. This post will combat the notion that casual sex has no moral implications to it.

Moral Implications

     Most people in the first world consider casual sex to have no moral implications, under the assumption that it is okay to pursue whatever that is pleasurable. However, there is a moral principle at work when two people engage in an act of casual sex. The moral principle at work is "means to an end".  For example, a rapist uses the victim to satisfy his sexual desire. Thus, the victim is a means to his end that is his sexual appetite. The victim, in turn, is dehumanized in the process by being brought down to the level of an object, void of distinct human characteristics. 

     The primary goal of a "hook-up" is to have sex. That is, to satisfy one's sexual appetite, or any other insecurities that rose from lack of however many sexual partners. So to satisfy this appetite by means of hooking up is to use the partner as a means to satify sexual desire. When there is no agape (Greek for unconditional love, or, in romantic terms, true love) related to the act, the partner is brought down to a level of an object, not a person, because there is no stigma toward reciprocal pleasure out of appreciation between the two. 

     Using another person to satisfy one's sexual desire is an act of injustice, since such an act disregards distinctly human characteristics, e.g. spirituality, and dignity; it is a dehumanizing act, thus immoral. But also, submitting oneself to be used as an object of sexual pleasure is also immoral, because by submitting, one depreciates oneself by dehumanizing oneself, an offense against what it means to be sentient and human. 

     Allow me to put this in blunt terms. Perhaps this would make you understand better of the philosophical babble stated above. If a man and a woman engage in a casual sex, the man is just shy of being a dildo, and the woman is just shy of being a porno magazine, because they are but means to an end. By the moral principle that is means to an end at work, one might as well be masturbating with another person's body. The moral principle at work is the same as the one that is at work with rape. 

"He who steals little steals with the same wish as he who steals much, but with less power." - From Laws book XII by Plato. 

The above quote by Plato has an infallible logic. And thus logic dictates:

He who engages in a casual sex to satisfy his sexual appetite does so with the same wish as he who rapes, but with less power.

Social Implications

     While recognizing the moral implications, we must also consider the application of these moral principles in a social setting. As we are all human, we all falter out of ignorance and imprudence; we all harm others and the ideal of justice without knowing. Thus we must restrain ourselves from prejudicial acts against human character, since it is a form of injustice in itself. There is a social stigma that socially penalizes women who sleep around with multiple men. I am referring specifically to "slut-shaming". All deserve to be tolerated and loved. That is to say, the person must not be shamed, but educated upon moral matters.

     However, tolerance of people does not equal to tolerance of their immoral actions. Immoral actions must be criticized for the sake of higher moral order. But in criticizing, we must refrain from offending the person's dignity.

     Also, the society has a habit of romanticizing sex to a level of transcendence, when, in fact, sexual pleasure is nothing but a combination of simple biological functions that propel us to engage in sex and produce offspring. Sex is almost deified in our culture. It is glorified and worshiped by the pop music and trending dance styles. Furthermore, a lot of the pop songs objectify a human being to their physical attractiveness. These examples of modern culture is reflective of sexual habits of many young men and women.

"Sexuality too is depersonalized and exploited, from being the sign, place, and language of love, that is, of the gift of self and acceptance of another, in all the other’s richness as a person, it increasingly becomes the occasion and instrument for self-assertion and the selfish satisfaction of personal desires and instincts" - Saint John Paul II

An example of how media tends to glorify sociopathic, dehumanizing sexual behaviors.
No, it's not legendary, Barney. It's a coerced rape. 

Pornography: Moral Implications

Objective

    In recent news, porn actress and Duke University freshman Belle Knox has been getting an unusual amount of attention. She has been claiming that the porn industry should be socially acceptable. Strengthening her position, a number of individuals support her, saying that there are no moral implications in porn industry, because all have their rights to do whatever they desire with themselves. To combat this view is the objective of this post.

Moral Implications

     The moral concept that will be at work here is "means to an end". Using a person as a means to an end would be to deprive or ignore the distinctively human characteristics vested within that person. Slavery and rape are good examples. 

     To enact the concept of means to an end would be to go against the natural law, which suggests that all beings in existence should be able to live as they were made to function. For example, lions are made to hunt, and zebras are made to prance about the safari. We humans use them as a means to achieve an end that is spectacle. We do the same to fellow human beings. 

     When an individual is jerking off to a porn film, he or she is using the people in that movie as  means to an end. The end being sexual satisfaction. Watching porn for the sake of sexual pleasure is to degrade the actors to their basic animal function - sex. This process deprives individuals of distinctively human characteristics. Depriving what is due to individuals (human characteristics, in this case) is to enact injustice.

     The same goes for the actors. When an actor is working for the porn industry, the individual has degraded his self to his sexuality. They are fully aware of why people watch porn, yet they self-degrade themselves to a level of an object that can be used by others. Such an act of self-degradation is an offense against human dignity. 

     Certainly, all human beings can do whatever they please with themselves and with others. However, can is not synonymous to should.

No it doesn't.

     

Does God Exist?: A Rational Inquiry

Does God Exist? 

 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." - Romans 1:20 

     The question we are about to inquire is to be a rational one. Through reason, I will attempt to answer this question that has been asked by mankind for as long as it has become sentient. With that said, I will not attempt to rationalize whether Christ is the Son of God, or the concept of salvation; only the existence of God. If you are curious of full rationale behind Christian theology, I highly suggest you to study theological works published by the Church.

     Before we begin asking the question, we must have a correct mindset. First and foremost, we must establish what we mean by God. We are not talking about god or gods. We are talking about God: the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Eternal. Secondly, we must abandon the notion that empirical science alone can prove the nonexistence or the existence of God, for natural science such as physics deals only with the temporal, not eternal. We cannot see beyond the laws given in this universe, which has a beginning and an end. Thirdly, we must rely on our ability to reason. No scientific data or contextual interpretation of holy texts can be relied on to answer our question, but pure reason may come in handy. Now, have you equipped yourself with the correct mindset? If so, let us ask the question: Does God exist? 

1) Observations on Logic

     I should remind you first that this inquiry will be a very hefty load to digest . To be better organized, let's divide our inquiry into steps. I have stated that our ability to reason will be the primary tool in this inquiry. Let us start from there. Mathematics is the first that comes to my mind. It is a reasoning discipline. Mathematics is one of the most common tool by which we can use to peer into the unknown and the undiscovered. After all, according to Galileo Galilei, "mathematics is the language with which God wrote the Universe". 

     We can predict (or discover) the future number of apples that will be on the table after I put two more on the table. To describe it with mathematical expression: 2+2=4. There will be four apples on the table after I put two more down on the table. But what is mathematics? Just a heap of numbers thrown in together? I believe not. We can deduce our scenario into a mathematical expression, but we can express in another mode: logic. One of the most common logical statements made in our day to day lives are "If, then" statements. So in our scenario, it would be stated: If I add two more apples onto a table with two apples on it, then there will be four apples afterward. It appears that mathematics is but an alternate expression of logic, substituting words with numbers.

     It seems to me that Galileo's statement is true in some sense, but to be clear, I would rephrase it. Logic is the language with which God wrote the Universe.

     To further reinforce my statement above, let me to object to the notion that logic is a human invention. I claim that, and you will see with reason, logic is inherent throughout the universe and beyond. I claim that we human beings are intelligent enough to perceive logic and articulate them with our language and modes of expressions e.g. mathematics. However, we have not created it. Like mathematics, it does not exist in a material form in our world, but rather primarily as an idea. Allow me to clarify.

If a star explodes, then it will create a supernova. 

     This is a logical statement. And this logic exists independently of human beings. Stars dying to create new ones have been the way by which the universe operated even before the formation of our own Sun. Of course, there are statements that only apply to human beings, such as "If Jack explodes a nuclear bomb, then the area of explosion will be radiated." But the very concept of logic supersedes our existence and this universe. The beginning of the big bang must have had a logic behind it: "If X,Y, and/or Z happens, then there will be a birth of a universe". Suffices to say that logic exists independently from this universe or another, or the empty void. It seems to me that we have sufficiently proven that logic is transcendent, that it is eternal. Needless to say, logic just is.

2) Observations on the Concept of Infinity

     Have you digested things that are stated above? If so, continue on with me. Another thing that comes to my mind that is eternal and transcendent, other than logic, is infinity.

     I have stated that natural sciences are not sufficient for our inquiry. However, we may be able to put scientific principles they provide to good use, because they are logical statements existing independently of applicable objects. Let's use Newton's third law of motion as a loose template: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This law applies to movable objects, such as footballs. However, it also applies to all things in a general sense. This law of motion can be rephrased to apply to all things: if there is a motion, then there is a cause. 

     All things in this universe have a cause. Let us examine the causes. Starting from us humans. 

     How have human beings come to be? Through evolution. How has evolution come to be? Through the birth of organic beings' tendency to adapt. How have organic beings come to be? Through the carbon structure. How has carbon come to be? Through nuclear fusion in the stars. How have stars come to be? Through conglomeration of hydrogen and helium particles formed after the big bang. How has the big bang come to be? Our physics cannot know for certain, but something has caused it. How has that thing that caused the big bang come to be? Through this thing that caused it to be. How has this thing that caused that thing to be come to be? Through this thing that caused that thing that caused the previous thing to be... You get the idea. The questions go on and on and on and on. We arrive at the concept of infinity. 

     Our principle states that all things have a cause. Now this perplexes me greatly. It seems to me that the infinity itself caused all things to be, and that this infinity is the cause of itself. Suffices to say that infinity is transcendent and eternal. It is clear, therefore, along with logic,  infinity also just is.

3) Logos

     We have established that logic and infinity are transcendent and eternal. We have dubbed a secondary alternative definition to both of them: logic is that which is transcendent and eternal; infinity is that which is transcendent and eternal. In our language, we have different words for logic and infinity, but according to the philosophical definition we have dubbed them, they are synonymous, at least in the context of our inquiry. Perhaps they are more than synonymous... perhaps they are the same. Thus this thing we are thinking of can be called "logic-infinity". It is a tad bit harsh on the usage of our language to say: "infinity-infinity", if the two are truly the same. So, for the sake of convenience of language, let us have this "logic-infinity" into one word: Logos (λόγος), a Greek word for reason (logic), or word. 

     There is no empirical or scientific proof of this Logos. But reason dictates that there is Logos, the origin of all things, a being that just is. And this just so happens to be synonymous to our common definition of God: transcendent, and eternal. After all, "God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'" - Exodus 3:14. We have not figured out whether this Logos has a consciousness as Abrahamic religions believe to be in this inquiry, but we have proven that there is something that we call the Creator - the origin of all things, the Supreme, He who just is. So we have our answer to our question: "Does God exist?" The answer is yes. There is something out there we humans have preferred to call it God throughout our history, and its nature proves to be the Supreme Entity. Thus, we call it God.


Picture from: link

My thoughts have been influenced from:
Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas
Metaphysics by Aristotle
Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

"Ἐν  ἀρχῇ  ἦν  ὁ  Λόγος,  καὶ  ὁ  Λόγος  ἦν  πρὸς  τὸν  Θεόν,  καὶ  Θεὸς  ἦν  ὁ  Λόγος." - John 1:1

I hope I adequately transferred my knowledge into words so that others can understand.