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

[seer]

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.

If you agree that our universe is temporal then by definition it is not infinite. This universe is not past eternal, and this universe is the only matter and energy that we know about.

Temporal: enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal ).

[shunyadragon]

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.

There are Natural Laws (recognized to be incomplete) developed by science to explain our physical existence. The assumption is that there are underlying Natural Laws (absolute logic?) that govern our physical existence comparable to our scientific natural laws.

I consider 'Nature' and 'Natural' to refer to the nature of our physical existence that may by subject to hypothesis and theories that are falsified by the methods of 'Methodological Naturalism.'

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*

The highlighted above is problematic. The word Quantum may refer descriptively of math nature of what is described as the Quantum world, but this does not define the Quantum world any more than math defines the nature of our world. Math is only a tool used in the scientific methods used in the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Your hedging on the 'lack of knowledge is the knowledge of lack.' We are not remotely dealing with any seense of 'absolute application.' This is to high a bar to be real.

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.

This is a misleading and too simplistic conclusion with ulterior motives. There is evidence that the Quantum world is possibly infinite, and there are falsified theories and hypothesis that demonstrates the likelyhood that the singularity formed in the Quantum world and resulted in the expansion of our universe. The cause would be 'Natural Laws' underlying the nature of the Quantum World.

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. ;)

Your pontificating with blue smoke and mirrors. Again, our limits of understanding of the Quantum World do not negate the evidence we have for the nature of the Quantum existence. Please note I never made any absolute statements of falsification nor heaven forbid 'proof' concerning the nature of the Quantum existence. My statements have been very clear. It is very possible that the Quantum world is infinite based on our present knowledge of physics and cosmology.

The fact is the arguments for the necessity of a first cause (God) in apologetics have a far weaker argument (without any evidence) than the possibility of an infinite Quantum World existence.

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. :)

Oh no! It is most definitely not trivia. Your statements here represent a 'hand wave' in a vain attempt to brush away the present knowledge of physics and cosmology concerning the nature of the Quantum world.

'Maybe it is, maybe it isn't,' is another useless hand wave.

The facts are current scientific knowledge demonstrates the possibility that our Quantum World beyond our universe is infinite. All the theories and hypothesis proposed falsified at present justify this possibility. The problem on the side of apologetics arguing for the necessity of of a first cause of our physical existence, is that there is absolutely no evidence for support this. It is based on old worn arguments of the likes of Thomas Aquinas.

I have one further example that might help clarify: As you know, given the nature of sc

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).

The assertion that the 'law requires a lawgiver" argument actually does work in the case of the foundational nature of all reality,' is most definitely 'Begging the Question with no supporting evidence. Law is simply a convenient suitable word in this case. You could stick anything here, but the meaning would not change. There is no evidence that Natural Laws have not always simply existed along with the infinite Quantum World as the nature of our physical existence.

[seer]

This is a misleading and too simplistic conclusion with ulterior motives. There is evidence that the Quantum world is possibly infinite, and there are falsified theories and hypothesis that demonstrates the likelyhood that the singularity formed in the Quantum world and resulted in the expansion of our universe. The cause would be 'Natural Laws' underlying the nature of the Quantum World.

Where is the evidence that the Quantum world is infinite? Where is the evidence that it exists anywhere but in THIS universe?

[shunyadragon]

Where is the evidence that the Quantum world is infinite? Where is the evidence that it exists anywhere but in THIS universe?

I may post something seer, but face you are opposed to science, and only selectively cite science when you believe it suites your agenda. Your still living in a Newtonian world.

Please note, I stated that the evidence indicates that there is a possibility that the physical existence is infinite.

[shunyadragon]

If you agree that our universe is temporal then by definition it is not infinite. This universe is not past eternal, and this universe is the only matter and energy that we know about.

Temporal: enduring for a time only; temporary; transitory (opposed to eternal ).

Temporal only applies to the time/space framework of our universe, and not the Quantum zero energy world.

[seer]

Temporal only applies to the time/space framework of our universe, and not the Quantum zero energy world.

Well where is this mythical Quantum zero energy world? Where does it exist apart from this temporal universe?

I may post something seer, but face you are opposed to science, and only selectively cite science when you believe it suites your agenda. Your still living in a Newtonian world.

Yet it is OK for you to tell an untruth when it suits you!

[37818]

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.

If infinite time had already passed, this universe would no longer be do to entropy.

[shunyadragon]

If infinite time had already passed, this universe would no longer be do to entropy.

Bizzaro poor grammatical, and lousy scientific understanding of entropy.

Please produce some intelligible reliable scientific references on this.

[seer]

Bizzaro poor grammatical, and lousy scientific understanding of entropy.

Please produce some intelligible reliable scientific references on this.

Hypocrite - where is your evidence that your mythical Quantum zero energy world exists anywhere besides in this universe?

[logician bones]

Your claim of the use of the Law of Causality represents an abstract assumption that only is used here to justify a 'first cause,'

This is a typical error. How wrong it is depends on how literally you take "first cause". As that argument is popularly formed, it is the opposite argument from infinite causality. First Cause can be used nonliterally and it could work, but worrying about applying that label or not is beside the point. This argument cannot change the soundness of the actual infinite causality argument itself, which is what you need to do. ;)

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'

Inigo.


You say you disagree to that part, but I can't help but notice you didn't actually mention any specific reasons for disagreement in your reply right after that. What specifically do you disagree with in this quote, and why?

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.

The only detail I see you mentioning is "other beings". Give me an argument for how there aren't. If you're willing to go down that road, you might be surprised to find we basically agree on this... though that depends on you and your beliefs which I'm not specifically familiar with beyond what I've seen you say... so... we'll see.

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.

Sigh. No, Shun, that's a popular misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It seems to come from, as I alluded to, the fact that we DON'T understand what's "beyond the frontier of knowledge" yet, and assumes this means it cannot be understood logically. But this is gapism at its worst!

(Also, "chain" is another misconception, though it is helpful in a beginner's learning about causality. It's actually factors.)

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.'

Are you trying to base everything in this part on the part I bolded here? Because we're not talking about human perspective, but absolute "sense" versus nonsense in how things behave in all reality, whether observed or understood by humans or not.

Other than that part, this looks very much like what I cautioned against; simply retreating into denying logic itself when faced with a sound argument for a conclusion you don't like...

There are Natural Laws (recognized to be incomplete) developed by science to explain our physical existence. The assumption is that there are underlying Natural Laws (absolute logic?) that govern our physical existence comparable to our scientific natural laws.

Agreed. Notice this is why God would be possible. :)

The highlighted above is problematic.

Everything you put after this part, I don't really see why you bring any of it up. Maybe because I'm tired and I have other things to get to in limited time, sorry. I guess I'll ask for you to explain what you're driving at with it, but you seem to be replying to an almost irrelevant tangent that I only brought up as concession to your own problematic wording; I was still advising against that... So, as far as I can see, your reply is only arguing against yourself there. :P

If it helps, lack of knowledge means we should be unsure. Sound support means we should be sure... with some qualifications that there is, unfortunately, a spectrum of certainty since few things after "I exist and there is an external reality" are actually 100% certain; most are within the bounds of "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a limitation every human needs to deal with as we attempt to understand the world and keep in mind as context to all of what we conclude.

There is evidence that the Quantum world is possibly infinite

Two things:

1) Such as? (I can guess, but I'd rather not put words in your mouth; it's a complicated subject.)

2) Evidence that it MAY be is odd wording. I said there's no positive evidence (obviously meaning that I know of for now) that it's an uncaused cause. This is affirmation of uncertainty, which automatically means it's "possible" as in not ruled out. So it's already on the table (as far as I'm concerned) that it MAY be infinite. I mentioned this a few times.

our limits of understanding of the Quantum World do not negate the evidence we have for the nature of the Quantum existence

And? Nobody suggested anything of the kind...

Please note I never made any absolute statements of falsification nor heaven forbid 'proof' concerning the nature of the Quantum existence. My statements have been very clear. It is very possible that the Quantum world is infinite based on our present knowledge of physics and cosmology.

I'm not sure what is giving you the idea that I don't recognize this, but if it will spare you wasted time in the future, I do. :) But it doesn't change any of what I said. It should be a given...

The fact is the arguments for the necessity of a first cause (God) in apologetics have a far weaker argument (without any evidence) than the possibility of an infinite Quantum World existence.

Sigh... Irony again. The reason why the quantum argument is stronger than "First Cause" is it enters the ground of infinite causation. This is a major step toward the infinite causality argument -- if it is to be plausible at all, it needs to be an attempt at a more specific theory of what form the infinite causality system takes in reality.

Both arguments are stronger than First Cause because First Cause (again, at least when taken literally by the name) is a rejection of infinite causality.

Sometimes "First Cause" seems to be used as a sort of informal way to summarize a key step in the way infinite causality works with the start of linear time... and that's okay so far as it goes, but doesn't really, by itself, say anything about theism. (That is, that from a linear-time perspective, the immediately preceding cause in nonlinear time is "first" of all, within the normal linear-only version of causality that we directly interact with.)

Oh no! It is most definitely not trivia. Your statements here represent a 'hand wave' in a vain attempt to brush away the present knowledge of physics and cosmology concerning the nature of the Quantum world.

Not at all. The point is that whether quantum mechanics is the infinite underlying supernature (or part of it), so our generation has reached it, or whether reaching that is yet to come, is trivia. The qualities necessary for it are NOT, though. The point is that whether we've found that already or not are trivial in comparison with the importance of logically testing whether God exists and what that means to us. And in fact sound proof of the biblical God has been available from the start to humans; it doesn't begin only once humans reach that level of scientific clarification of the details of the physics of it. Though doing so would certainly help, and what we have found so far helps a LOT, whether that line is still beyond our frontier or not.

'Maybe it is, maybe it isn't,' is another useless hand wave.

No. It's important to be honest where we actually DON'T know something for sure. You DO understand this, since you put so much emphasis on the very same thing. ;)

The assertion that the 'law requires a lawgiver" argument actually does work in the case of the foundational nature of all reality,'

Shun, you completely missed what I was saying there, apparently -- that it actually works as a "argument for what's a better term". As an actually useful semantics argument -- but since it's semantics, you're expected to understand that that's only advice, and using that label is technically just as valid.

I... probably should stop expecting you to understand such basics, though... siiiiigh. It's so tedious though...

[JimL]

Jim:


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.




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.

I think that you are confusing the constancy of nature with logic.

Jim:



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

No it isn't, thats your opinion. The mind in my opinion is nothing more than the physical brain.

*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?

You'll need to explain what you mean by a manifestation of the sound of god moving about the garden?

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).

You have a better imagination than I.

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).

The Infinite extent of material existence makes sense, the infinte extent of an immaterial mind does not. At least not to me.

[logician bones]

I think that you are confusing the constancy of nature with logic.

Again, that's just semantics. You can define terms that way, but it's not how we're defining them when we talk about absolute logic. I've clarified what I mean by it several times. You can make a case of advice against using the word that way, but it does seem to be the most efficient one. Either way, the meaning behind it stands.

The mind in my opinion is nothing more than the physical brain.

Well, again, you can redefine words that way, but in normal terms, mind = software, brain = hardware. Your mind is immaterial. It's housed, however, in something material (made of matter; meaning atoms). God's mind isn't housed in atoms, but it's still "housed" in a coherent physics system of something (perhaps best called energy, or "substance" as we've been over before) that, unlike atoms, can be infinite and beyond-linear time. That a coherent logical system besides matter can contain cause and effect is required by the need for this universe (with atoms etc.) to be caused. That it must be infinite is shown by the nature of causality too. That leaves mainly if it can be alive with an infinite mind.

You'll need to explain what you mean by a manifestation of the sound of god moving about the garden?

Why? It's obvious... I don't buy that you really have trouble with this. If so... well, how do you even begin? You understand how a body makes sound as it walks, right? Or do you not understand how an omnipotent being can make a manifestation?? Where is the confusion here?

the infinte extent of an immaterial mind does not

It does when that mind is perfectly consistent, since inconsistent things are self-limiting. And within infinite variety, there would have to be one set that is perfect. And since everything requires a cause, there has to be infinite variety... etc.

[shunyadragon]

Agreed. Notice this is why God would be possible. :)

This is not the reason God is possible, but yes God is possible, and I believe in God.

Everything you put after this part, I don't really see why you bring any of it up. Maybe because I'm tired and I have other things to get to in limited time, sorry. I guess I'll ask for you to explain what you're driving at with it, but you seem to be replying to an almost irrelevant tangent that I only brought up as concession to your own problematic wording; I was still advising against that... So, as far as I can see, your reply is only arguing against yourself there. :P

No as long as you consider the science trivia, you are arguing against yourself.

If it helps, lack of knowledge means we should be unsure. Sound support means we should be sure... with some qualifications that there is, unfortunately, a spectrum of certainty since few things after "I exist and there is an external reality" are actually 100% certain; most are within the bounds of "beyond reasonable doubt". This is a limitation every human needs to deal with as we attempt to understand the world and keep in mind as context to all of what we conclude.

The anecdotal certainty "I exist and there is an external reality" does not contribute anything to belief that this external reality is God.

Two things:

1) Such as? (I can guess, but I'd rather not put words in your mouth; it's a complicated subject.)

Claiming it is a complicated subject is a smoke screen.

[quote]
2) Evidence that it MAY be is odd wording. I said there's no positive evidence (obviously meaning that I know of for now) that it's an uncaused cause. This is affirmation of uncertainty, which automatically means it's "possible" as in not ruled out. So it's already on the table (as far as I'm concerned) that it MAY be infinite. I mentioned this a few times.

Actually, it is not an odd wording, and no I do not believe it is on the table as far as most apologist arguments for a first cause. Actually the uncaused cause is more likely Natural Law underlying all of existence. The Quantum World is an infinite medium for our existence and not the cause itself. The possibility that it may be infinite is an honest doubt that science cannot likely answer with certainty for some time. There are of course unanswered questions for example the conflict between 'Quantum zero point energy' and the 'uncertainty principle' is not yet resolved, but again unresolved issues do not weaken the current knowledge of Quantum Mechanics as per the reference I gave and you ignored.

Virtually all the theories and hypothesis concerning Quantum Mechanics and the Quantum world indicate that the Quantum world is infinite without any known finite limits.

Sigh... Irony again. The reason why the quantum argument is stronger than "First Cause" is it enters the ground of infinite causation. This is a major step toward the infinite causality argument -- if it is to be plausible at all, it needs to be an attempt at a more specific theory of what form the infinite causality system takes in reality.

Actually the process of causation is the subject of theories and hypothesis concerning the forming of singularities, which than expand into possible universes. This is best explanation for causality we have at present. Again the natural mechanism for causality is the underlying infinite natural laws that are the foundation of our existence.

How familiar are you with Quantum Mechanics, Quantum zero-point, and the theories and hypothesis that support these theories. Apparently you care less about Trivia.

Both arguments are stronger than First Cause because First Cause (again, at least when taken literally by the name) is a rejection of infinite causality.

Sometimes "First Cause" seems to be used as a sort of informal way to summarize a key step in the way infinite causality works with the start of linear time... and that's okay so far as it goes, but doesn't really, by itself, say anything about theism. (That is, that from a linear-time perspective, the immediately preceding cause in nonlinear time is "first" of all, within the normal linear-only version of causality that we directly interact with.)

Very Newtonian, and not relevant in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Not at all. The point is that whether quantum mechanics is the infinite underlying supernature (or part of it), so our generation has reached it, or whether reaching that is yet to come, is trivia. The qualities necessary for it are NOT, though. The point is that whether we've found that already or not are trivial in comparison with the importance of . . .

You pessimistic negative view of science as trivia is not encouraging for any future of any possible dialogue between us. It is apparent that you consider the scientific knowledge of our physical existence as trivial.

logically testing whether God exists and what that means to us. And in fact sound proof of the biblical God has been available from the start to humans; it doesn't begin only once humans reach that level of scientific clarification of the details of the physics of it. Though doing so would certainly help, and what we have found so far helps a LOT, whether that line is still beyond our frontier or not.

Woof! What a grand over statement that is irrelevant. The above highlighted clearly indicates where this dialogue could possibly continue. Not far with an unwarranted assumption like that!! All reasonable argument goes out the window with science.

No. It's important to be honest where we actually DON'T know something for sure. You DO understand this, since you put so much emphasis on the very same thing. ;)

Will never know many things for sure this is a none issue. The best possible evidence should lead the way, and your hand waving it away as trivia.

[logician bones]

belief that this external reality is God.

Whoa there. Slow down. You wanted to know the logic that leds to proof of God. I'm asking if you accept the most basic prerequisites before we get that far. The "external reality" I was talking about was the observeable world, other people, animals etc. -- and you know from a past discussion that I do NOT hold that to "be" God. (Created by God yes, but you're getting ahead of yourself.) If you're going to keep wildly imagining absolute nonsense versions of putting words in my mouth, this is going to go nowhere fast. I'm asking you a question. All you need to do is answer clearly, and we can work from there.

Let's start again at the most basic one. Do you agree that you exist?

Pretty much the rest of your post seems pointless, mostly your usual repeating yourself (why are you bothering? I got it the first time :P). I know your view already. You asked mine, and apparently my explaining it already before in one of your topics wasn't clear enough, so I'd like to see if you're willing to actually walk through the logic step by step and explain where you disagree if you do, and why. Do you not care about the real truth? Why should you fear this?

[JimL]

Again, that's just semantics. You can define terms that way, but it's not how we're defining them when we talk about absolute logic. I've clarified what I mean by it several times. You can make a case of advice against using the word that way, but it does seem to be the most efficient one. Either way, the meaning behind it stands.


Well, again, you can redefine words that way, but in normal terms, mind = software, brain = hardware. Your mind is immaterial. It's housed, however, in something material (made of matter; meaning atoms). God's mind isn't housed in atoms, but it's still "housed" in a coherent physics system of something (perhaps best called energy, or "substance" as we've been over before) that, unlike atoms, can be infinite and beyond-linear time. That a coherent logical system besides matter can contain cause and effect is required by the need for this universe (with atoms etc.) to be caused. That it must be infinite is shown by the nature of causality too. That leaves mainly if it can be alive with an infinite mind.


Why? It's obvious... I don't buy that you really have trouble with this. If so... well, how do you even begin? You understand how a body makes sound as it walks, right? Or do you not understand how an omnipotent being can make a manifestation?? Where is the confusion here?


It does when that mind is perfectly consistent, since inconsistent things are self-limiting. And within infinite variety, there would have to be one set that is perfect. And since everything requires a cause, there has to be infinite variety... etc.

I've been thinking over your argument and have come to the conclusion that I am wrong and you are correct, the world does seem to fit the definition of what we would call logical, but I think that what i believe to be your conclusion from this fact, i.e., that because nature is logical it must have been created by a logical mind is unfounded. So, I concede the first round to you, but now maybe you can convince me of your main point, i.e. that the fact that nature is constant, in that it conforms to what we call logic, is evidence that it was created by a mind? I still say that nature functions the way it functions because it is natural that it does so. Why do you think I am wrong?