Logic, Therefore God...

[seer]

As if you would see the logic of a Deist!
That's a delightful idea!
Are you trying to tell me that everything that you touch, see, hear, experience and feel has nothing to do with God? How illogical!

Then show me the logic! If I say I see the hand of God in nature that is a subjective experience or belief. That is not a logical syllogism. And I think you need to define your god - you said it wasn't "mindful" so what is it?

[Stoic]

Again, I asked what do you see in nature?

I don't see logic in nature. I see logic in the statements of human beings.

Stoic do you believe for a moment that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment. No matter which form of logic you use do you really think that is possible? Really?

No, I don't believe that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment, based on empirical observation.

But empirical observation doesn't lead to absolute certainty.

[seer]

I don't see logic in nature. I see logic in the statements of human beings.

But human beings can make up all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality. That is why I asked if you can show a true contradiction in nature.

No, I don't believe that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment, based on empirical observation.

But empirical observation doesn't lead to absolute certainty.

You don't believe? Or is it just simply impossible? Like a perfectly round square?

[Stoic]

But human beings can make up all kinds of things that have nothing to do with reality. That is why I asked if you can show a true contradiction in nature.




You don't believe? Or is it just simply impossible? Like a perfectly round square?

Next you're going to tell me God must exist because there is no such thing as a married bachelor...

[eider]

Then show me the logic!

As if you could see the logic of Deism! (repeated)
Everything is a part of the whole.......... Logical!
The whole is One...... Logical!
But the whole is unaware of you. As unaware of you as you are of an atom in a molecule in the wall of your Aorta.... Logical!

If I say I see the hand of God in nature that is a subjective experience or belief.

Yes...... for you just a belief.
But it is Objective for me to see everything and force as part of the Whole. The Whole is the Deity. Objective.

That is not a logical syllogism. And I think you need to define your god - you said it wasn't "mindful" so what is it?

It is existent.
Definition? God is everything, every force, and all else.

But your OP.... Point 4 Such propositions are mind dependent. That is illogical.
If your mind and all others were destroyed, The galaxies and all would still be there.

[Machinist]

God is everything, every force, and all else.

That would be pantheism...or pandeism.

But your OP.... Point 4 Such propositions are mind dependent. That is illogical.
If your mind and all others were destroyed, The galaxies and all would still be there.

The propositions themselves are mind dependent, that is, the verbal descriptions and associated mental constructs. The objects that these propositions signify exist independent of any labels. The argument that has been going on here is who's propositions best capture the reality of the real world, it's laws and properties.

[Machinist]

Based on the existence of non-classical logic.

I think this really works for the atheist. This is a good summary here.

After all, atheism has man, not God at the center of their worldview. Anything man can create, in this case, relative logic systems, where the law of non-contradiction is non-absolute, is all part of "nature".

It exists, in the mind of man...man created it, and man can communicate with it given that at least two minds agree on the assumptions, therefore it exists in nature, in the Real World.

[seer]

Yes...... for you just a belief.
But it is Objective for me to see everything and force as part of the Whole. The Whole is the Deity. Objective.

That is not a logical conclusion - it is an assertion.

It is existent.
Definition? God is everything, every force, and all else.

How do you KNOW that? Prove it logically or admit it is a bare assertion. BTW this sounds more like Pantheism rather than Deism.

But your OP.... Point 4 Such propositions are mind dependent. That is illogical.
If your mind and all others were destroyed, The galaxies and all would still be there.

No God's mind would still be here. That was the whole point...

[seer]

Next you're going to tell me God must exist because there is no such thing as a married bachelor...

But according to your view of logic a married bachelor could exist since the LONC is not absolute. Of course I do believe that God is the source of logical truths, He is by nature rational. But for our discussion I'm just pointing to how your view undermines human rationality.

[eider]

That would be pantheism...or pandeism.

Yes. But those two are exactly opposed to each other.
I'm a Deist, but which one?

The propositions themselves are mind dependent, that is, the verbal descriptions and associated mental constructs.

True.... mental constructs. But Logic and God would be carrying on without, in any case.

[QUOTE]The objects that these propositions signify exist independent of any labels. [QUOTE]
True.

The argument that has been going on here is who's propositions best capture the reality of the real world, it's laws and properties.

Yes, and I propose that Deism succeeds in that before others.

[eider]

That is not a logical conclusion - it is an assertion.

Assertions are subjective. My observations are objective.

How do you KNOW that? Prove it logically or admit it is a bare assertion. BTW this sounds more like Pantheism rather than Deism.

Then you don't know the difference.
Theism is about aware, interested, involved Gods. Deism is exactly the opposite.
And it isn't an assertion, it's an observation.

No God's mind would still be here. That was the whole point...

True....... No God's mind would be focused upon here, anymore than your mind could focus upon a cell in your right kidney.

[seer]

Assertions are subjective. My observations are objective.

No they are not. If they are prove them. The sun is objective - how is your god?

Then you don't know the difference.
Theism is about aware, interested, involved Gods. Deism is exactly the opposite.
And it isn't an assertion, it's an observation.

No, prove that everything is god. So far all you are doing is asserting that it is objective.

And, Deism:

the belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe

.

It doesn't say that god is the universe, and it says that god created the universe - something you claimed you didn't know...

True....... No God's mind would be focused upon here, anymore than your mind could focus upon a cell in your right kidney.

That wasn't my point!

[eider]

No they are not. If they are prove them. The sun is objective - how is your god?

Look.......... Your Thread title reads 'Logic, therefore God...' which is far from 'Logical'.
You make mention of the Sun, and I can see and feel that, and it is Logical to perceive that this, together with everything else is part of 'The Whole'
I perceive 'The Whole' as being God. But my perception is reasonable, logical.

No, prove that everything is god. So far all you are doing is asserting that it is objective.

That's not too bad, then, perceiving all around and beyond as part of 'The Whole'.
Every particle......... every force........ and anything else.

And, Deism: .

It doesn't say that god is the universe, and it says that god created the universe - something you claimed you didn't know...

It.....? It claimed......?
How logical is that?
God is all...... but far too vast to be aware of, interested in, or involved with us.

To think otherwise must be some kind of megalomania.

That wasn't my point!

Your point is that you want to 'prove' that your idea of God is logical. The very fact that you think God takes such interest in humans is .... illogical, given the vastness of all, and our brief appearance in time.

[seer]

Look.......... Your Thread title reads 'Logic, therefore God...' which is far from 'Logical'.
You make mention of the Sun, and I can see and feel that, and it is Logical to perceive that this, together with everything else is part of 'The Whole'
I perceive 'The Whole' as being God. But my perception is reasonable, logical.

Then you have to define your god. The physical universe is objective. The sun, moon, stars planets, trees, rocks, lakes, etc... So where is your god in this picture, what is it? Is your god merely the physical universe or something more?

Your point is that you want to 'prove' that your idea of God is logical. The very fact that you think God takes such interest in humans is .... illogical, given the vastness of all, and our brief appearance in time.

Then show HOW it is illogical, exactly. Don't just assert. What does the vastness of the universe negate the idea that God is aware of us?

[Machinist]

Just a quick question/observation here this morning:

Is it even possible to imagine or ontologize anything outside the bounds of the three fundamental laws of logic: the law of non-contradiction, the law of excluded middle, and the law of identity?

And when I say ontologize, a word that I made up, I haven't clearly defined that yet. Just use your imagination.

We can spell out something manually, such as A=B, but can we actually see it, imagine it, experience it...hold it in our minds and rotate it about and take cross sections of it at any arbitrary angle?

There does seem to be an absolute reality.

I'm not understanding why atheists can't agree here. It's like they are equivocating ontologies...another phrase I made up in my attempts to describe what is going on here.

"An ontology encompasses a representation, formal naming and definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities that substantiate one, many, or all domains of discourse. More simply, an ontology is a way of showing the properties of a subject area and how they are related, by defining a set of concepts and categories that represent the subject."