Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Did God create logic? Or is logic further evidence of God�s existence?
Collapse
X
-
. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostUncaused existence is one aspect.
An uncaused cause is another aspect.
Existence and cause are two distinct things.
The uncaused existence possesses all there is or can be.
An uncaused cause would be the answer as to caused things in existence. There cannot be Being without either. They define being of anything. Our limited consciousness. The uncaused existence possessing all there is constitutes an unlimited consciousness in a way that our limited consciousness at best maybe can only image. Consider the electron and being aware of every one of them in every state at the same time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostUncaused existence is one aspect. An uncaused cause is another aspect. Existence and cause are two distinct things. The uncaused existence possesses all there is or can be. An uncaused cause would be the answer as to caused things in existence. There cannot be Being without either. They define being of anything. Our limited consciousness. The uncaused existence possessing all there is constitutes an unlimited consciousness in a way that our limited consciousness at best maybe can only image. Consider the electron and being aware of every one of them in every state at the same time.
Comment
-
Jim:
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.
How can you reconcile these two things? Frankly, as much as I respect you from our past conversations, I can only conclude that an illogical mind leads you to write that paragraph.
Besides, if reality isn't logical, why should minds worry about being logical in understanding it? Ah, but then you run into the impossibility of such arguments again -- because if you accept any illogic like that, you might as well accept it all and appeal to circular reasoning etc.... You end up diving down a rabbit hole. How can I expect you to logically explain to me why such illogic is okay? Ultimately you must end up appealing to "logic isn't absolute, because I say so, so I don't need to make sense when I talk about this!"
Sigh...
And yet, meanwhile, all observation backs up logic being absolute!
All you're really doing is choosing to blind yourself to this. You aren't affecting the absolute logical nature of reality by claiming it isn't absolute.
Logic is not needed to produce a reality
Think about it.
However, if you mean to produce a part of reality... yes it is.
37818:
The uncaused existence possessing all there is constitutes an unlimited consciousness in a way that our limited consciousness at best maybe can only image.
Shun:
The underlying eternal and infinite Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause of all of existence.
The "natural law" of this created universe is partially this "general physics", but also (at least we can't rule this out) "specific physics" of the design of the universe. My stock analogy is how programmers can write "specific physics" rules in a virtual world based on how they design the program, which has to use more general rules as a foundation. (And those in term derive from an even more general set of rules; natural law as we normally mean by it; the physics of atoms and electricity that led us to design computers this way.)
Absolute causality encompasses all the most foundational physics as well as specific designs.
Another analogy is car design leading to rules for how the car will behave -- as long as its design remains intact in that specific way, but the foundational rules of material physics still govern why it can be designed that way -- and also govern how it wears down, how alterations will change its specific physics, etc. Logical rules of physics are absolute even as they change.
Other universes may be possible with different specific physics, but they still must work within absolute logic.
Jim:
how do you invision this mind, its obviously immaterial
I'm assuming you don't imagine god to be like the one portrayed in the bible who literally was heard strolling about in the garden in the breezy time of day.
The thing is, I can invision an infinite quantum vacuum, but I have no idea how one would invision an infinite mind
All of which, incidentally, fits naturally with an infinite quantum vacuum. Not that I think it's that simple; I think the raw reality form is probably many levels below that, or that's just one specific-physics design (or both).
Comment
-
What is called "Natural Law" is a composite of ideas. And what ever we mean by "Natural Law" it is contingent on existence. Fundamentally there ultimately is an uncaused existence - which "Natural Law" is contingent on. Natural Law maybe what one may choose to call the uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is two things - uncaused, eternal, immutible in being eternal and a cause which is a mutability - finite and temporal.Last edited by 37818; 06-08-2016, 07:44 AM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostWhat is called "Natural Law" is a composite of ideas.
And what ever we mean by "Natural Law" it is contingent on existence. Fundamentally there ultimately is an uncaused existence - which "Natural Law" is contingent on. Natural Law maybe what one may choose to call the uncaused cause. An uncaused cause is two things - uncaused, eternal, immutible in being eternal and a cause which is a mutability - finite and temporal.
What is your evidence that Natural Laws and the Quantum World is contingent on anything? The bottom line is there is no such evidence available to justify your assertions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostIt 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.
What independent assumptions would you use for an argument that God exists?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFalse, not the definition of Natural Laws. Natural Laws are simply the Natural Laws that govern the nature of existence.
Assertions like the above are only 'Begging the Question' to justify your conclusions.
What is your evidence that Natural Laws and the Quantum World is contingent on anything? The bottom line is there is no such evidence available to justify your assertions.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Shun:
What independent assumptions would you use for an argument that God exists?
I'll summarize how it starts, though. Remember that sound logic starts with reliable observation (preferably the MOST reliable observations, and mine starts at the best ones possible), builds only from reliable reasoning to sound conclusions, and multiple such conclusions are then fed as premises into other valid forms to reach more conclusions and so forth. If you do it right, there are no "assumptions" by the popular meaning of that word -- though every premise is called an assumption in a different (neutral) sense jargonistically.
The root observations are that I exist, there is an external reality that isn't me and I don't control as far as I can tell, there are other beings who as far as all observation can test show every sign of being equal to me in these ways, who can substitute my "I exist" observation from their own perspective and say the same, and all of this absolutely always follows logical causality when testable... and always when we cannot test it there are logical reasons why we cannot and so forth.
With me so far?
From there we notice the basic rules of causality -- everything is an effect which is in turn a cause of more effects. If you think about it, this requires an infinite, never-ending setup of causes becoming effects, for everything. Every state of existence -- observed or concluded -- is caused.
Do you agree?
If not... well, I'd ask "why not" but then you'd be endorsing nonsense, so you could just say "I don't need a why -- I don't think reality is logical so nonsense is okay!" :P Then YOU beg the question. ;)
We can work from there, if you agree. :)
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostYou need then to define what you mean by "natural." Laws can only govern temporal things in existence.
I am only asserting that there is uncaused existence and that uncaused is eternal and that a cause is finite and temporal. So what what is it that you think is different?
Ok. Are you asserting that there can only be caused existence? What caused it? And I said noting about "Quantum World" which only deals with finite things.
Again; Can you provide any evidence that the Quantum World is finite?
Comment
-
So, shun, you are defining "nature" in the sense that does not use the "supernature divide" definition scheme? So absolute logic = "Natural Law" in your chosen jargon?
Normally "nature" is used to refer to this world primarily, and natural law to either human lists of observations (recognized to be incomplete) or to the rules for this universe specifically.
Whether what we refer to as quantum mechanics specifically is part of the absolute or is part of natural law in the normal sense of the word is unclear, but it does seem unlikely that we've delved deep enough so that our current frontier of knowledge is the base! Every generation makes that mistake... let's not. ;) For what it's worth, though,"quantum" simply refers to the mathematical nature of that layer of reality. Mathematical qualities would indeed be absolute, so that term does lend itself to absolute application. *shrugs*
No, there is no evidence that what we call quantum mechanics is an uncaused cause, though it does seem like it's close to what that must be. I would agree, though, that it's just as unproven that QM is merely finite, as far as I know. But notice that this really doesn't matter to what we're discussing. It'll be great if we can answer this, but it doesn't really change anything in terms of logic being absolute and how God is tied into it. Maybe you feel an emotional need to believe that this current frontier of knowledge is "the stuff of God" so you can be part of the generations that found it... but that's of no value really and probably the same mistake as the "the end is coming this November!" people. ;)
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but ultimately that's trivia. What we do know is that SOME kind of completely logical system is all throughout everything, and our world (all its levels of physics, not just the one we call QM) share that with God. :)
Edit: Also, "law" isn't a good term to refer to the foundational nature of all reality and therefore God too; the "law requires a lawgiver" argument actually does work in that case (as far as an English definition scheme attempting to be chosen wisely goes).Last edited by logician bones; 06-08-2016, 09:40 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by logician bones View PostHow are you defining "assumption"? You've heard my arguments on this before -- why the need to ask this question? Are you unclear on any steps along the way in my argument? If so, let's hear your questions.
I'll summarize how it starts, though. Remember that sound logic starts with reliable observation (preferably the MOST reliable observations, and mine starts at the best ones possible), builds only from reliable reasoning to sound conclusions, and multiple such conclusions are then fed as premises into other valid forms to reach more conclusions and so forth. If you do it right, there are no "assumptions" by the popular meaning of that word -- though every premise is called an assumption in a different (neutral) sense jargonistically.
The root observations are that I exist, there is an external reality that isn't me and I don't control as far as I can tell, there are other beings who as far as all observation can test show every sign of being equal to me in these ways, who can substitute my "I exist" observation from their own perspective and say the same, and all of this absolutely always follows logical causality when testable... and always when we cannot test it there are logical reasons why we cannot and so forth.
With me so far?
Your claim of the use of the Law of Causality represents an abstract assumption that only is used here to justify a 'first cause,' and therefore 'Begs the Question' concerning arguments for the existence of God.
The necessity of their existing 'other beings,' likewise is assumption that 'Begs the Question' used in the arguments for the existence of God. I see not reason to accept that 'other beings' necessarily exist.
Science provides an adequate explanation for the 'external reality that isn't me and I do not control' that results in 'our existence.' It is not necessarily true, but nonetheless it provides an adequate explanation.
From there we notice the basic rules of causality -- everything is an effect which is in turn a cause of more effects. If you think about it, this requires an infinite, never-ending setup of causes becoming effects, for everything. Every state of existence -- observed or concluded -- is caused.
Do you agree?
If not... well, I'd ask "why not" but then you'd be endorsing nonsense, so you could just say "I don't need a why -- I don't think reality is logical so nonsense is okay!" :P Then YOU beg the question. ;)
I do not think the answer to the question 'why?' is necessary, nor is reality necessarily logical from the human perspective. It is more the subject of 'subjective belief.' To try and force this necessity of an answer to the question 'why?' leads to 'begging the question' with ulterior motives.
We can work from there, if you agree. :)Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-09-2016, 07:20 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFalse. The Natural Laws that govern the Quantum World beyond our universe would not only govern the temporal things in existence. They would also govern the timeless nature of the Quantum world.
Uncaused anything is a deducion using our human logic.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostThere is no evidence beyond what we can find or deduce from things in this world. This world being finite and temporal.
Uncaused anything is a deducion using our human logic.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment