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

[37818]

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?

Uncaused 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.

[shunyadragon]

Uncaused existence is one aspect.

True

An uncaused cause is another aspect.

True

Existence and cause are two distinct things.

True

The uncaused existence possesses all there is or can be.

Yes, and the Quantum World could possibly be an uncaused existence, and inherently may possess 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.

The underlying eternal and infinite Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause of all of existence.

[JimL]

Uncaused 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.

Yes, but that doesn't really answer my question. You obviously believe god to be a mind of sorts, so how do you invision this mind, its obviously immaterial, so does it have extent, is it infinite in extent, or is it only infinite in knowledge? 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, or god.

[logician bones]

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.

Do you have any idea of the irony between the two parts I bolded here?

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

I agree -- that's not what we're talking about. Reality as a whole cannot be "produced" -- because then there would be something that's real... outside reality... making reality. Reality as a whole (infinite reality) has to just "be". But within that reality, everything is causally connected in a logical way. Absolutely.

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.

Agreed... with the following clarification...



Shun:

The underlying eternal and infinite Natural Law could possibly be the uncaused cause of all of existence.

In a sense, this is true too -- as long as you don't take "natural law" here in the way you probably want to -- translate that to what we've said is absolute -- logical causality -- and understand that this requires an unlimited being exist. I've called this "general physics" before.

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

Keep in mind (sorry for the pun) that "mind" is by definition always 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.

*ahem* That's a manifestation. You seriously think there's anything incoherent about the view that an infinite, omnipotent God can make manifestations like that?

The thing is, I can invision an infinite quantum vacuum, but I have no idea how one would invision an infinite mind

Why should it be envisioned? It's immaterial; not visual, just like finite minds. Yet we can still visualize some aspects of it -- look into neurology especially. Now imagine that sort of mental connection system but infinite and without distance limits (thus no travel time problems).

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).

[37818]

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.

[Sparko]

logician bones: It's hard to argue logic with illogical people who don't know/understand what it is, isn't it? Keep up the good work.

[shunyadragon]

What is called "Natural Law" is a composite of ideas.

False, not the definition of Natural Laws. Natural Laws are simply the Natural Laws that govern the nature of existence.

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.

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.

[shunyadragon]

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.

What logical argument would justify 37818's conclusions other than on based on assumptions that Beg the Question that God Exists?

What independent assumptions would you use for an argument that God exists?

[37818]

False, not the definition of Natural Laws. Natural Laws are simply the Natural Laws that govern the nature of existence.

You need then to define what you mean by "natural." Laws can only govern temporal things in existence.

Assertions like the above are only 'Begging the Question' to justify your conclusions.

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?

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.

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.

[logician bones]

Shun:

What independent assumptions would you use for an argument that God exists?

How 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?

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. :)

[shunyadragon]

You need then to define what you mean by "natural." Laws can only govern temporal things in existence.

False. 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.

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?

Yes, you are asserting this without evidence. The Quantum World may be considered an infinite uncaused existence based on the evidence

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.

There is no evidence that the Quantum World deals with only finite 'things.' There is no known evidence that demonstrates that the Quantum World is finite.

Again; Can you provide any evidence that the Quantum World is finite?

[logician bones]

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).

[shunyadragon]

How 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.

Premises for the arguments

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.

This a wordy description of your view and use of premises or 'assumptions.' If the 'premises' or assumptions are genuinely neutral OK, but unfortunately some if not many 'premises' in the apologetic arguments are not neutral, but are specifically used to justify the conclusions.

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?

I am with you but do not agree.

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?

No. You are using an outdated Newtonian causality. In modern physics and cosmology there are no such necessary 'basic rules of causality?!?!' that are relevant. From what is presently known about the 'Quantum World' and 'Natural Law' has no such chain of causality. The evidence indicates simply exist infinitely without known prior cause and effect.

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. ;)

The above does not make sense to me, unless you have some sort Buddhist Koan here. It almost sounds like if I do not agree with you, than I for some contorted reasoning am 'begging the question.' Very odd!

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. :)

I believe it is possible to work together in a dialogue, but no we do not necessarily agree.

[37818]

False. 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.

There 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.

[shunyadragon]

There is no evidence beyond what we can find or deduce from things in this world. This world being finite and temporal.

You have not answered the question. What is the evidence that our physical existence is finite? It is accepted that our universe is temporal, because time began when universe began, but there is not any evidence that our physical existence is finite.

Uncaused anything is a deducion using our human logic.

Fallible human logic is questionable and often self serving.