Logic, Therefore God...

[eider]

You again avoided the question.

This is a common tactic of yours.

[/QUOTE]Why do you call nature god? [/QUOTE]
Now off you go and copy paste why I exactly wrote that.
Do you call Angels God?
The only power, force or representative of God around here is ....... Nature. And since you and I are both well under its thumb we had better recognise that, I think.

Why not just call it nature? And what do you mean nature is part of the whole - what else is there?

Around here, 'what else' indeed! You wrote it.
If you want to pop antimatter, black holes, and other amazing existences in to Nature then 'fine', Nature just gets bigger and bigger. But I expect that there will be more than Nature...... just a guess, that.

I did. The Swiss Alps are way larger and more imposing than my three year old granddaughter - yet she has infinitely more value to me.

Hmmmm...... there are many grand-daughters living in the Swiss Alps. Don't caste the whole mountain range aside.
And I somehow get the impression that this last sentence of yours destroys much of your OP.

[Machinist]

To repeat a point I made earlier in the thread, that a proposition is true in all possible worlds simply means that there is no possible world where the proposition is false.

It does not mean that the proposition necessarily exists in all possible worlds. Presumably, in worlds where there are no minds, there are no propositions.

I agree. If there are no minds, then there are no propositions. Everyone here agrees with that.

What has to be assumed here though, is that in every possible world, things are what they are...A=A. I believe that it is safe to assume the self evident.

The only other option is to say that there are possible worlds where things are not what they are... that they are not identical to themselves. What that even means, or how that would work, I haven't a clue. It's as if we're pointing to the negation of existence itself.

If the thing's identical-ness to itself is relative to something that is not itself...that would be beyond consciousness, and no one can even think of it. At that point, it's all nonsensical, and even though we can perhaps make symbols that express that idea in statements, there is no example I can think of where some thing is not identical to itself. That realm, or world where things are not identical to themselves, I posit does not exist, nor can anyone even imagine it, as consciousness is limited to the laws of thought.


Propositions are not necessary in any world for that world to exist. They are necessarily not necessary.

[seer]

The only power, force or representative of God around here is ....... Nature. And since you and I are both well under its thumb we had better recognise that, I think.

You still are not making sense. Again nature is powerful, but why call that god? You said that god is not "mindful" nor "aware" of us - so what is it? What are its attributes - if it has any?

Around here, 'what else' indeed! You wrote it.
If you want to pop antimatter, black holes, and other amazing existences in to Nature then 'fine', Nature just gets bigger and bigger. But I expect that there will be more than Nature...... just a guess, that.

So you really have no good reason to call it all god? And BTW nature is dying - second law of thermal dynamics... What happens to your god then? Does it die too?

Hmmmm...... there are many grand-daughters living in the Swiss Alps. Don't caste the whole mountain range aside.
And I somehow get the impression that this last sentence of yours destroys much of your OP.

So what? That is the point - I bet those granddaughters are more important to their loved ones than the Alps - if they had to choose between them and the Alps I bet they would choose the children 100% of the times. Vastness has NOTHING to do will value - never did...

[seer]

Your deductive logical argument in premised upon the assumption of the existence of a god. But a deductive argument can only be sound only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. You have not shown this to be the case.

And you can not make a deductive argument that nature alone created this universe - oh wait you believe it is likely a simulation. Never mind...

Living in a country with more equitable distribution of wealth and sufficient welfare safety nets for the needy, is preferable to the surge in "fascism" the world witnessed under Trump.

Yes you are more Communistic and it is showing...And Trump never instituted the draconian policies we are seeing in the US and in your country.

[Stoic]

I agree. If there are no minds, then there are no propositions. Everyone here agrees with that.

Some people seem to have a problem with the idea of no propositions existing.

What has to be assumed here though, is that in every possible world, things are what they are...A=A. I believe that it is safe to assume the self evident.

I have no problem with that, as an assumption.

The only other option is to say that there are possible worlds where things are not what they are... that they are not identical to themselves. What that even means, or how that would work, I haven't a clue. It's as if we're pointing to the negation of existence itself.

If the thing's identical-ness to itself is relative to something that is not itself...that would be beyond consciousness, and no one can even think of it. At that point, it's all nonsensical, and even though we can perhaps make symbols that express that idea in statements, there is no example I can think of where some thing is not identical to itself. That realm, or world where things are not identical to themselves, I posit does not exist, nor can anyone even imagine it, as consciousness is limited to the laws of thought.


Propositions are not necessary in any world for that world to exist. They are necessarily not necessary.

If "things are what they are" because of how we have defined the words, then it is fair to say that the statement is necessarily true (i.e. a tautology), but then it necessarily does not say anything about how the world works.

To the extent that it says something about how the world works, then it may be impossible to imagine it being false, but our inability to imagine that a statement could be false may indicate a failure of our imagination, rather than the necessity of the statement being true.

[eider]

You still are not making sense. Again nature is powerful, but why call that god?

I did not call Nature God. If you want to discuss logic you must first comprehend what is written.
Nature is not God. Nature is simply the ultimate guv'nor around here, which you will know soon enough if you don't already.

You said that god is not "mindful" nor "aware" of us - so what is it? What are its attributes - if it has any?

Attributes? God is everything, that's quite a few attributes.
I'll try again. There are billions of atoms in your body which you know absolutely nothing about. But they are part of you.
To God we are just atoms in cells in something else........ in a universe, which is probably very very small and unnoticed by God.

So you really have no good reason to call it all god?

I have reason. Everything is a part of the whole. Ergo, you are part of God. So am I . Logical.

And BTW nature is dying - second law of thermal dynamics... What happens to your god then? Does it die too?

And now I know that you are lost in whatever illogical reasoning you've spun together.

Nature is everything around you..... it was here when some giant star exploded and caused the dust clouds, a few of which formed this whole solar system.
Nature rules around here.
There have been several mass extinctions here........ you think that Nature died? Illogical!

So what? That is the point - I bet those granddaughters are more important to their loved ones than the Alps - if they had to choose between them and the Alps I bet they would choose the children 100% of the times. Vastness has NOTHING to do will value - never did...

Since every particle of anything is a part of the whole = God, I don't have any particular issues with your tiny Grand-daughter being more important to you than the vastness of a mountain range.
In time, you, me, my wife, our kin, your kith and kin, will all be as dust in the wind....on some mountain rage. But everything that was us will still be there, here, part of the whole,, part of God.

You wanted a nice heaven for everness....is that you what you strive to force logic to tell you? Illogical, but good luck with that. I can acknowledge anybody's faith.

[Tassman]

And you can not make a deductive argument that nature alone created this universe

One can verify the existence of the natural world (or components thereof) and thereby establish a true premise from which to make a sound deductive argument. Conversely, one cannot make a sound deductive argument based merely upon the unverified notion of a god existing.

[seer]

One can verify the existence of the natural world (or components thereof) and thereby establish a true premise from which to make a sound deductive argument. Conversely, one cannot make a sound deductive argument based merely upon the unverified notion of a god existing.

That is nonsense - present your syllogism! Second, you don't even really believe that universe was created by non-rational, non-intelligent forces - that is is most likely a simulation...

[seer]

I did not call Nature God. If you want to discuss logic you must first comprehend what is written.
Nature is not God. Nature is simply the ultimate guv'nor around here, which you will know soon enough if you don't already.

Logic? You really are dense! I have asked you - if god is not nature then what is it? You have failed to answer. If god is more than nature then what is this more?

Attributes? God is everything, that's quite a few attributes.
I'll try again. There are billions of atoms in your body which you know absolutely nothing about. But they are part of you.
To God we are just atoms in cells in something else........ in a universe, which is probably very very small and unnoticed by God.

Those are attributes of nature, you are suggesting that god is something more, that it is not just nature. Again, what is this something more?

[Machinist]

If "things are what they are" because of how we have defined the words, then it is fair to say that the statement is necessarily true (i.e. a tautology), but then it necessarily does not say anything about how the world works.

To the extent that it says something about how the world works, then it may be impossible to imagine it being false, but our inability to imagine that a statement could be false may indicate a failure of our imagination, rather than the necessity of the statement being true.

Do you think that "A=A" is merely a tautology?

Imagining the statement being false is one thing, it's quite another to imagine the reality that the statement points to being false. For there to be existence, something must exist. There is no existence without a thing... some thing, that exists. Even if there were nothing but space, and no matter to fill that space, then space itself would be the existent... the thing that exists. For existence to exist, a thing must exist. That thing is not a thing if it is not what it is (A=A), and there is no existence if there is no thing that exist. Existence cannot be spoken of except for referring to the thing that exists. Identity then, is a fixed reality that is a necessary absolute, just as necessary as existence. I might even go out on a limb and say that identity and existence are the same thing. Existence necessarily implies identity and vice versa.

I do not think that it is merely a failure of imagination, that we are unable to imagine something not being what it is...something beyond the laws of thought. By saying "beyond the laws of thought", we're merely applying an empirical analogy to what is self evident . We are able to imagine something "beyond those yonder hills", so it's just a short jump to say (not imagine) "beyond the laws of thought". The difference is that we can actually imagine and create a world that is beyond the hills. We cannot do the same for beyond thought. All we can do with that is repeat the empty statement over and over. Is that a failure of imagination, or is it a self evident and necessary truth? I maintain that such a world does not exist, as it is impossible for things to be something that they are not.

[seer]

And now I know that you are lost in whatever illogical reasoning you've spun together.

Nature is everything around you..... it was here when some giant star exploded and caused the dust clouds, a few of which formed this whole solar system.
Nature rules around here.
There have been several mass extinctions here........ you think that Nature died? Illogical!

Will the universe eventually run out of usable energy? Yes or no...

Since every particle of anything is a part of the whole = God, I don't have any particular issues with your tiny Grand-daughter being more important to you than the vastness of a mountain range.
In time, you, me, my wife, our kin, your kith and kin, will all be as dust in the wind....on some mountain rage. But everything that was us will still be there, here, part of the whole,, part of God.

You wanted a nice heaven for everness....is that you what you strive to force logic to tell you? Illogical, but good luck with that. I can acknowledge anybody's faith.

The part about the granddaughters was simply to demonstrate that vastness does not equal value. That if God were aware of us, we could have value to Him no matter the size of the cosmos. Of course in your case you have deity that is completely clueless and useless...Nice that...

[Stoic]

Do you think that "A=A" is merely a tautology?

Imagining the statement being false is one thing, it's quite another to imagine the reality that the statement points to being false. For there to be existence, something must exist. There is no existence without a thing... some thing, that exists. Even if there were nothing but space, and no matter to fill that space, then space itself would be the existent... the thing that exists. For existence to exist, a thing must exist. That thing is not a thing if it is not what it is (A=A), and there is no existence if there is no thing that exist. Existence cannot be spoken of except for referring to the thing that exists. Identity then, is a fixed reality that is a necessary absolute, just as necessary as existence. I might even go out on a limb and say that identity and existence are the same thing. Existence necessarily implies identity and vice versa.

I do not think that it is merely a failure of imagination, that we are unable to imagine something not being what it is...something beyond the laws of thought. By saying "beyond the laws of thought", we're merely applying an empirical analogy to what is self evident . We are able to imagine something "beyond those yonder hills", so it's just a short jump to say (not imagine) "beyond the laws of thought". The difference is that we can actually imagine and create a world that is beyond the hills. We cannot do the same for beyond thought. All we can do with that is repeat the empty statement over and over. Is that a failure of imagination, or is it a self evident and necessary truth? I maintain that such a world does not exist, as it is impossible for things to be something that they are not.

After a little further study (I may have pointed out already that I'm no philosopher), I'd say that it can never be the case that "A=A" is false. But that leaves open the question of whether it is necessarily true. IOW, it might be the sort of statement that is nonsense, and thus neither true nor false. According to this paper, that is the view that Wittgenstein held.

The paper distinguishes between the possibility that "A=A" is trivially and universally true, and thus uninformative, and the possibility that "A=A" is nonsense, and thus neither true nor false. The argument is along the lines of 'It is nonsense to question whether an object can be distinguished from itself, so it is nonsense to assert that an object is identical with itself, because the negation of nonsense is still nonsense.'

I would lean towards the 'trivially and universally true, and thus uninformative' side (i.e. tautology), but I wouldn't absolutely dismiss the 'A=A is nonsense' viewpoint.

[Tassman]

That is nonsense - present your syllogism!

Not at all. One can make sound deductive arguments premised upon the verifiable facts of the natural laws and constants of the universe. This cannot be done with the unverified premise of god’s existence.

Second, you don't even really believe that universe was created by non-rational, non-intelligent forces - that is is most likely a simulation...

“Simulation” is presented as a possible reality by several reputable philosophers and scientists – there is more evidence for it than your ‘god did it’ scenario. And, if true, the simulators themselves would have evolved via the laws of nature - unless you are suggesting they live eternally like your hypothesized deity.

[eider]

Will the universe eventually run out of usable energy? Yes or no...

Usable? Usable by who?
If and when the universe stops (ie, no energy) it will be a whole lot of matter and might start to attract back to it's center.
And what about other universes? I think God is bigger than one universe. There might be billions of them.

The part about the granddaughters was simply to demonstrate that vastness does not equal value. That if God were aware of us, we could have value to Him no matter the size of the cosmos.

Still gripped by such megalomanias as 'we are so valuable!'??

Of course in your case you have deity that is completely clueless and useless...Nice that...

I know....... you think your god is better than everyone else's gods..... you think only you are right.

And I don't have a deity. I am a tiny part of a deity, together with you and all else.

[Machinist]

After a little further study (I may have pointed out already that I'm no philosopher), I'd say that it can never be the case that "A=A" is false. But that leaves open the question of whether it is necessarily true. IOW, it might be the sort of statement that is nonsense, and thus neither true nor false. According to this paper, that is the view that Wittgenstein held.

The paper distinguishes between the possibility that "A=A" is trivially and universally true, and thus uninformative, and the possibility that "A=A" is nonsense, and thus neither true nor false. The argument is along the lines of 'It is nonsense to question whether an object can be distinguished from itself, so it is nonsense to assert that an object is identical with itself, because the negation of nonsense is still nonsense.'

I would lean towards the 'trivially and universally true, and thus uninformative' side (i.e. tautology), but I wouldn't absolutely dismiss the 'A=A is nonsense' viewpoint.

It does seem to be a paradox, this atomic relationship. I don't know what to think of this at the moment.

Just an observational question here:

I wonder if this idea of a thing being identical to itself has it's roots in Platonic Forms?

"Consider that a proposition that expresses a genuine relation is a molecular proposition.
It is a proposition with constituent parts that are atomic, and these should be able to be conceived independently. " -Wittgenstein

What is being compared when we say that an object is identical to itself? By what logic are we extracting this phantom?

And what is it but some "form" that is identical to itself?

Could this logic be rooted in Plato?


Thanks for the link. This is very interesting. Do you have any more thoughts or insights on this?