Did God create logic? Or is logic further evidence of God�s existence?

[JonathanL]

correct. but for that to happen God would not exist. And there would be nobody to actually grasp anything conceptual. But as a mental exercise, imagine that God never existed, and therefore there was no universe, nothing at all. How many Gods would exist? Zero. How many universes exist? Zero. So you see? You can still use math to describe a concept where there is nothing. No God, no universe. Still math can describe it. It would still be true and real that there are zero Gods, zero universes, and zero anything. Math would still be real. Even if there were no one there to discover it.

I'm sorry Sparko, I can't amen this post because Gerbil is being a tiny (and wrong) meanie.

[Sparko]

Christianbookworm and Chrawnus,
If you don't stop peppering Sparko's inane posts with Amens I'm going to hunt both of you down and pull your panties up over your heads.

Meh Gerbil

illogical. does not compute.

[Christianbookworm]

illogical. does not compute.

He's joking. Right?

[Meh Gerbil]

He's joking. Right?

Nope, but I am a gentleman.
I'll allow you to pick one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZA_Q4IpRII

[Christianbookworm]

Nope, but I am a gentleman.
I'll allow you to pick one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZA_Q4IpRII

How do you know if you'd win in a fight?

[37818]

they are not things that are created. They are merely concepts to explain reality as it is.

Uncreated is not a created thing. A concept is not a material thing. Wisdom is a spirit along with understanding. Concepts are they not?

Is "honesty" a thing, or a a word, a concept to describe some characteristic? Did God create honesty, or is he merely honest? It is something that describes an attribute of God. God didn't create honesty. He didn't one day say, "Ya know, I think I need to be truthful, so I will first make this thing called truth, and then I will create this other thing called honesty, and then I will be it."

No. And neither did he create logic, or math. They are just concepts we use to describe reality. Since God is real, we can use them to describe him too. He didn't create them, they don't even exist as "things" - just like using math we can say that God is one. And always has been. It doesn't mean God created the concept of one. It just is. We discovered the concept, but it always has been there, and has always applied to God, even before the first man figured out how to count.

If you want to have uncreated concepts not dependant on God. Then no God was ever needed in the first place. Concepts are non material. Are concepts nothings - no things? They are more than an unneeded God.

[JimL]

they are not things that are created. They are merely concepts to explain reality as it is.

Is "honesty" a thing, or a a word, a concept to describe some characteristic? Did God create honesty, or is he merely honest? It is something that describes an attribute of God. God didn't create honesty. He didn't one day say, "Ya know, I think I need to be truthful, so I will first make this thing called truth, and then I will create this other thing called honesty, and then I will be it."

No. And neither did he create logic, or math. They are just concepts we use to describe reality. Since God is real, we can use them to describe him too. He didn't create them, they don't even exist as "things" - just like using math we can say that God is one. And always has been. It doesn't mean God created the concept of one. It just is. We discovered the concept, but it always has been there, and has always applied to God, even before the first man figured out how to count.

So if honesty describes a characteristic of god, does math describe a characteristic of god as well? Did god create math, or is he merely mathematical? Actually though,I agree with you Sparko, none of these concepts have anything to do with god, they have to do with the nature of existence.

[logician bones]

are logical traits to be expected of the necessary infinite, non-linear-time being who originated this universe! Remember that its linear timespace form leads it to all "wind down" over time toward heat death. Its linear nature requires there be something beyond the linear nature that originated it -- and this is DUE to logicexperience in linear time, but that's not the same thing as rational understanding. Please try to avoid universal negative assumptions. If you want to try to back that up, okay, but it's an unwise approach. Instead of trying to learn from those who might understand, or try to understand it yourself, you focus the discussion instead on defending a reason to close your mind. Unwise.

Also, be careful with "we" when you really mean you, at the moment. :)



"Postulating beyond our context into truths that exist outside space/time is ridiculous, IMHO."

Only if you do it illogically...



Jim:

"Did math exist before god created. If so, to what did it apply?"

Before God created what? Our universe? Yes it "did" (does, outside of linear time).

If not, how would that work, exactly?

It applied to everything causally prior to ("before") our universe -- God, and anything else that is outside God but not part of our universe (if anything).







Tass:

"God is a failed hypothesis"

No, he's a proven conclusion. Anywho...



Meh:

"If reality doesn't exist (as we understand it)"

I don't see the point of word games like this? Reality can be and usually is a synonym for existence... And our understanding of existence has nothing to do with whether it does exist.


"then the concepts used to describe that reality (as we understand it) would not exist either."

But since you defined your use of "exist" as nonliteral, that makes this an apparently useless statement... What are you trying to accomplish by this?



37818:

"If you want to have uncreated concepts not dependant on God."

Those are two different things. We're talking about uncreated concepts (to use your terminology) that ARE dependent on God, and God on them, because they're absolute and involve the necessity of God's existence.


Jim:

"So if honesty describes a characteristic of god, does math describe a characteristic of god as well?"
Yep.

"Did god create math"

Nope. That would make it NOT a characteristic of God... and would also require "anti-math" to be possible, which isn't coherent at all...

"is he merely mathematical?"

Take out "merely".

"none of these concepts have anything to do with god,"

Bad word choice. That's like saying math has nothing to do with a calculator. :P

Logic has something to do with God in three key ways. First, logic must be all throughout God for him to have coherent existence and life (as with anything that exists... yeah, I know you're agnostic, yadda, but you can accept this principle in the sense of "if he exists). Second, God must exist in order for logical coherency to be absolute, as otherwise nonsense happens, as we've been over before elsewhere, and if it did, it should happen everywhere, making all life impossible. Third, God is the one being whose mental awareness of logic is perfect, being omniscient, holy, infinite, etc. All others are finite, so our understanding is limited, and we at least are also fallen for now, so we make mistakes as well.

So, logic itself is necessary everywhere as (as you put it) the nature of existence, which includes God, and logic in this sense and God are interdependent on each other for the rest of existence to be possible -- and actually all of this is also interdependent on God understanding logic perfectly too, since his omniscience is part of his necessity.

[JimL]

are logical traits to be expected of the necessary infinite, non-linear-time being who originated this universe! Remember that its linear timespace form leads it to all "wind down" over time toward heat death. Its linear nature requires there be something beyond the linear nature that originated it -- and this is DUE to logicexperience in linear time, but that's not the same thing as rational understanding. Please try to avoid universal negative assumptions. If you want to try to back that up, okay, but it's an unwise approach. Instead of trying to learn from those who might understand, or try to understand it yourself, you focus the discussion instead on defending a reason to close your mind. Unwise.

Also, be careful with "we" when you really mean you, at the moment. :)



"Postulating beyond our context into truths that exist outside space/time is ridiculous, IMHO."

Only if you do it illogically...



Jim:

"Did math exist before god created. If so, to what did it apply?"

Before God created what? Our universe? Yes it "did" (does, outside of linear time).

If not, how would that work, exactly?

It applied to everything causally prior to ("before") our universe -- God, and anything else that is outside God but not part of our universe (if anything).







Tass:

"God is a failed hypothesis"

No, he's a proven conclusion. Anywho...



Meh:

"If reality doesn't exist (as we understand it)"

I don't see the point of word games like this? Reality can be and usually is a synonym for existence... And our understanding of existence has nothing to do with whether it does exist.


"then the concepts used to describe that reality (as we understand it) would not exist either."

But since you defined your use of "exist" as nonliteral, that makes this an apparently useless statement... What are you trying to accomplish by this?



37818:

"If you want to have uncreated concepts not dependant on God."

Those are two different things. We're talking about uncreated concepts (to use your terminology) that ARE dependent on God, and God on them, because they're absolute and involve the necessity of God's existence.


Jim:

"So if honesty describes a characteristic of god, does math describe a characteristic of god as well?"
Yep.

"Did god create math"

Nope. That would make it NOT a characteristic of God... and would also require "anti-math" to be possible, which isn't coherent at all...

"is he merely mathematical?"

Take out "merely".

"none of these concepts have anything to do with god,"

Bad word choice. That's like saying math has nothing to do with a calculator. :P

Logic has something to do with God in three key ways. First, logic must be all throughout God for him to have coherent existence and life (as with anything that exists... yeah, I know you're agnostic, yadda, but you can accept this principle in the sense of "if he exists). Second, God must exist in order for logical coherency to be absolute, as otherwise nonsense happens, as we've been over before elsewhere, and if it did, it should happen everywhere, making all life impossible. Third, God is the one being whose mental awareness of logic is perfect, being omniscient, holy, infinite, etc. All others are finite, so our understanding is limited, and we at least are also fallen for now, so we make mistakes as well.

So, logic itself is necessary everywhere as (as you put it) the nature of existence, which includes God, and logic in this sense and God are interdependent on each other for the rest of existence to be possible -- and actually all of this is also interdependent on God understanding logic perfectly too, since his omniscience is part of his necessity.

First off, logic has to do with reason, and an omniscient god would be in need of neither. Logic isn't a thing in itself, nor is it a thing existing in something else, it is a method used by the non-omniscient mind to discover truths about the nature of existence. The existence of a god isn't necessary in order that an existing world to be understood by means of logic and reason.

[logician bones]

[Edit: Er, whoops. I liked your post on accident LOL... Is there a way to undo that? I meant to report it to ask if we really need that whole post quoted... :P]

First off, logic has to do with reason, and an omniscient god would be in need of neither. Logic isn't a thing in itself, nor is it a thing existing in something else, it is a method used by the non-omniscient mind to discover truths about the nature of existence. The existence of a god isn't necessary in order that an existing world to be understood by means of logic and reason.

Logic in terms of our methods to discover truth is not what we're talking about when we say that it's absolute in the way the principles of math are, Jim. I mentioned that several times. Our minds are studying how reality works -- that means it has to actually work that way. Logic as a term isn't only used to describe human mental processes, but WHAT those mental processes are about. Coherent existence, basically. And for there to be a being (whether finite or infinite), that being does need coherent existence; AKA logic in the sense of math, non-contradiction, etc.

It's absolute nonsense to say that a being who knows everything doesn't need logic -- by either definition. To have a being at all, and things to know, you need logical existence so that being can exist and the outside reality can be consistent, thus knowable. And within that being's mind, there has to be at least some kind of logic to be able to know things; knowledge is within the realm of logic. Of course, we believe this being has infinite knowledge and perfect reason, so not just part of logic, but all of it.

As for necessity, it's to be expected you won't understand why that's true yet, since you're an agnostic. But your unawareness of why it's true doesn't change that it is. Last we spoke on this I was asking you to agree to some foundational facts to lead to this -- and you stopped replying, so unless you want to take it up from there, that won't likely go anywhere productive.

But you already did agree that nothing "just happens", so there's no reason for you to be objecting to logic being absolute. That's basically just another way to say the same thing.

[37818]

. . . But that "most fundamental truth of all" can be taken the wrong way... so still confused on what you're saying.

How can that be taken the wrong way? Unless God Himself is the fundamental self evident truth of all truth - no God is need. All self evident truths are contingent on existing. God is the Self-Existent One. That is the meaning of His Name and His identity. And there are other arguments that can be made.

Consider that part of the argument the Apostle Paul used, ". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . ."

[logician bones]

It does sound like you have it basically right... Not how I would word things... a lot of that could mean a lot of different things. But okay.

[37818]

It does sound like you have it basically right... Not how I would word things... a lot of that could mean a lot of different things. But okay.

You are probably correct. That it could have been differently or better worded. Sometimes it is difficult to convey some ideas in a way others can better understand. And even when that is done a concept can still sometimes be misconstrued. God Himself being the Eternal Existence in which all self evident truths are dependent even in being co-eternal without having any beginning.

[JimL]

You are probably correct. That it could have been differently or better worded. Sometimes it is difficult to convey some ideas in a way others can better understand. And even when that is done a concept can still sometimes be misconstrued. God Himself being the Eternal Existence in which all self evident truths are dependent even in being co-eternal without having any beginning.

I wonder how you invision god as an entity. How would you define this being? Do you imagine god as being an eternal and immaterial mind that extends to infinity? Or have you no thoughts on that?

[JimL]

[Edit: Er, whoops. I liked your post on accident LOL... Is there a way to undo that? I meant to report it to ask if we really need that whole post quoted... :P]



Logic in terms of our methods to discover truth is not what we're talking about when we say that it's absolute in the way the principles of math are, Jim. I mentioned that several times. Our minds are studying how reality works -- that means it has to actually work that way. Logic as a term isn't only used to describe human mental processes, but WHAT those mental processes are about. Coherent existence, basically. And for there to be a being (whether finite or infinite), that being does need coherent existence; AKA logic in the sense of math, non-contradiction, etc.

A world has to work the way it works whether it is the product of creation or not. The principles of math are only principles because they comport with the way the world is structured whether that world is created or not. No matter how the world came about, or how differently it might be constructed, whether created or not, its reality need have nothing to do with logic, it simply is what it is. Logic is a function of the mind. There is nothing logical about reality, about the world in and of itself, we call our thoughts about reality logical and coherent when they are in agreement with reality, whatever that reality might be.

It's absolute nonsense to say that a being who knows everything doesn't need logic -- by either definition. To have a being at all, and things to know, you need logical existence so that being can exist and the outside reality can be consistent, thus knowable. And within that being's mind, there has to be at least some kind of logic to be able to know things; knowledge is within the realm of logic. Of course, we believe this being has infinite knowledge and perfect reason, so not just part of logic, but all of it.

The point is that it isn't existence that is logical so a logical being isn't needed to create it, and so the use of that argument as evidence to support the existence of god doesn't work.

As for necessity, it's to be expected you won't understand why that's true yet, since you're an agnostic. But your unawareness of why it's true doesn't change that it is. Last we spoke on this I was asking you to agree to some foundational facts to lead to this -- and you stopped replying, so unless you want to take it up from there, that won't likely go anywhere productive.

I think I answered to this above. Logic is not needed to produce a reality, it is only needed to understand that reality.

But you already did agree that nothing "just happens", so there's no reason for you to be objecting to logic being absolute. That's basically just another way to say the same thing.

Well I've argued that "nothing comes from nothing" not that "nothing just happens" but I do agree that whatever happens, unless it is eternal, there is a reason for its happening, but logic is the mental process of coming to understand the reason for its happening, it isn't the reason itself.