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

[shunyadragon]

<snipe>

[logician bones]

Yeah, your replies pretty much went down the rabbit hole I predicted, Shunya. Sigh. Again, we're not talking about "a first cause." I already debunked that strawman. We're talking about absolute causality. Your response appears to be mostly based on that strawman, so...

The bottom line with your claims comes back to what I said before -- we don't know if what we call quantum mechanics is throughout all reality, or if instead that is part of our universe (or some other limited region of existence containing our universe). We'd like to know, and hope to find out if possible, but since we don't, what is the point in arguing about it? You conceded you don't know, so there's no reason for you to keep pushing it. It's one possibility, but it isn't relevant to what you were asking about in this topic. Either way, logical causality is absolute, and the reasoning I summarized proves God.

It looks like you're trying to distract from the answers to your question about logic by focusing on this quantum mechanics thing. Shunya, it's irrelevant to the topic question. Unless you think quantum mechanics gives evidence of nonsense -- yet you yourself just claimed you don't. But even if you did, you would just show yourself not to understand quantum mechanics. ;)

And please stop acting like it's somehow you who is on the side of science. Science is not at all opposed to absolute logic. It depends on it.

If you can show a substantive scientific argument that backs up a conclusion that somehow disagrees with me or biblical theists in general, go for it. Otherwise, your just saying "no, you're wrong somehow! And... SCIENCE!" is just trying to substitute emotionally associating yourself with science in place of an actual argument... It's just a copout. Not impressed. ;)

*hopes Jim will show up and bring some sanity back here lol*

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, your replies pretty much went down the rabbit hole I predicted, Shunya. Sigh. Again, we're not talking about "a first cause." I already debunked that strawman. We're talking about absolute causality. Your response appears to be mostly based on that strawman, so...

No strawman, and it is your rabbit hole you went down.

The bottom line with your claims comes back to what I said before -- we don't know if what we call quantum mechanics is throughout all reality, or if instead that is part of our universe (or some other limited region of existence containing our universe). We'd like to know, and hope to find out if possible, but since we don't, what is the point in arguing about it? You conceded you don't know, so there's no reason for you to keep pushing it. [/I]

The above bolded argues a classic 'appeal to ignorance'. You claim a lack of knowledge proves your case.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio) appealing to ignorance as evidence for something. (e.g., We have no evidence that God doesn't exist, therefore, he must exist. Or: Because we have no knowledge of alien visitors, that means they do not exist). Ignorance about something says nothing about its existence or non-existence.

© Copyright Original Source

It's one possibility, but it isn't relevant to what you were asking about in this topic. Either way, logical causality is absolute, and the reasoning I summarized proves God.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs, or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

It looks like you're trying to distract from the answers to your question about logic by focusing on this quantum mechanics thing. Shunya,

No.

it's irrelevant to the topic question. Unless you think quantum mechanics gives evidence of nonsense -- yet you yourself just claimed you don't. But even if you did, you would just show yourself not to understand quantum mechanics. ;)

Nonsense, you need to explain rationally what you mean concerning the above.

And please stop acting like it's somehow you who is on the side of science. Science is not at all opposed to absolute logic. It depends on it.

False, science is not dependent on 'absolute logic,' because 'absolute logic does not exist from the human perspective.

If you can show a substantive scientific argument that backs up a conclusion that somehow disagrees with me or biblical theists in general, go for it. Otherwise, your just saying "no, you're wrong somehow! And... SCIENCE!" is just trying to substitute emotionally associating yourself with science in place of an actual argument... It's just a copout. Not impressed. ;)

The argument is not against the Biblical or Christian argument. It is against the logical necessity of the existence of God.

*hopes Jim will show up and bring some sanity back here lol*

Jim will not help you out of your rabbit hole.

You need to clarify your claim of 'first cause,' or 'prior cause,' as opposed to the possibility that our physical existence is infinite without 'prior cause.'

[logician bones]

No strawman

What do you mean? How not? Am I making too much of your calling it "a first cause"? I don't see a good reason for you to put it that way. Infinite causes isn't well-described that way. It implies the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. So... even if you don't mean it literally, why use it? If not as a strawman?

The above bolded argues a classic 'appeal to ignorance'.

Uh, no. A statement that we don't know something is not an argument based on that lack of knowledge, Shun. You would do well not to try to outlogician me. :P I was asking what you hope to accomplish by seeming to obsess about something that, the fact remains, is still an open question, and cannot logically change the important facts about the answer to your topic question.

False, science is not dependent on 'absolute logic,' because 'absolute logic does not exist from the human perspective.

You do realize Schroedinger's cat is a metaphor, right? ;) If I may adapt it a bit, we could say that if a cat is unaware of something, "it does not exist from the cat's perspective." This is a useless word game. It does exist. The cat is simply ignorant of it, as apparently is the human using the name Shunyadragon. :P Humans do not directly observe absolute causality, but they deduce it logically. Remember the whole point of logic is to figure out reliable truths beyond mere observation.

And yes, science is dependant on everything having a logical causal explanation. To say otherwise is "nonsense of the gaps".

You can believe that... it just means you can't go around appealing vaguely to science in place of an argument. But if you have one, let's hear it!

You need to clarify your claim of 'first cause,'

Shun... Straw? Is this blatant self-contradiction thing just a Baha'i strategy? It is, isn't it? You can admit it. :P But please stop it... yeesh...

But... on the plus side... you do seem to be trying to understand things... You're really good at asking interesting questions. I like that. But why does that seem to always stop when you get too deep into the discussion? You always retreat into these mysterious "Oh, I'm definitely right, and I don't have to say why, but YOU have to explain what YOU mean much more now!" things. I have explained as much as seems needed right now. What more do you need? Without specific questions, what else can I do? I'm not going to guess at what you're confused on.

I'm left thinking, again, that this is your way of distracting from the discussion you yourself started once it becomes obvious you can't hold up an untenable view.

Or maybe it's just plain old trolling?

Edit: As for the part at the end about physical existence... we went over that before. Do you not understand the entropy argument? But then, that also depends on definitions. How can you in 2016 try to make what appears worded as an infinite universe argument? I can only generously hope you might mean something other than what "physical" normally means. I often point out that the word is based on the idea of physics -- of things working in a logical way. So that wording isn't far off from what I'm talking about -- absolute causality. Existence is infinite (no prior cause to all existence), and has some kind (kinds) of logical physics all throughout it. And within that, for reasons explained earlier, is God.

Otherwise, what could you mean that would hold up in light of what we know about entropy? This universe as it is cannot be infinite, Shun. That's well understood now.

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean? How not? Am I making too much of your calling it "a first cause"? I don't see a good reason for you to put it that way. Infinite causes isn't well-described that way. It implies the exact opposite of what I'm talking about. So... even if you don't mean it literally, why use it? If not as a strawman?

You need to state you argument clearly for "first cause," and duck behind the bushes of obfuscation.

Uh, no. A statement that we don't know something is not an argument based on that lack of knowledge, Shun. You would do well not to try to outlogician me. :P I was asking what you hope to accomplish by seeming to obsess about something that, the fact remains, is still an open question, and cannot logically change the important facts about the answer to your topic question.

IT is not just 'that we do not know something.' It is using the 'we do not know something,; as a justification for an argument. You are half right and half wrong, but yes wrong!

Your repeated use of logical fallacies bring to serious question concerning your supposed logic skills.

You do realize Schroedinger's cat is a metaphor, right? ;) If I may adapt it a bit, we could say that if a cat is unaware of something, "it does not exist from the cat's perspective." This is a useless word game. It does exist. The cat is simply ignorant of it, as apparently is the human using the name Shunyadragon. :P Humans do not directly observe absolute causality, but they deduce it logically. Remember the whole point of logic is to figure out reliable truths beyond mere observation.

There is no such thing as 'absolute logic,' and you skirting here on responding to this point. You cannot deduce 'absolute logic,' from fallible human logic.

And yes, science is dependant on everything having a logical causal explanation. To say otherwise is "nonsense of the gaps".

False. need explanation if you want to continue with this line of reasoning.

Edit: As for the part at the end about physical existence... we went over that before. Do you not understand the entropy argument? But then, that also depends on definitions. How can you in 2016 try to make what appears worded as an infinite universe argument? I can only generously hope you might mean something other than what "physical" normally means. I often point out that the word is based on the idea of physics -- of things working in a logical way. So that wording isn't far off from what I'm talking about -- absolute causality. Existence is infinite (no prior cause to all existence), and has some kind (kinds) of logical physics all throughout it. And within that, for reasons explained earlier, is God.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs, or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

Otherwise, what could you mean that would hold up in light of what we know about entropy? This universe as it is cannot be infinite, Shun. That's well understood now.

You need to justify this with a good scientific argument, and present a good argument that any such argument justifies the necessity of a finite universe.

The typical argument for 'entropy' for a finite universe by apologists require assumptions that are not science.

HINT:
The Law of Entropy requires the assumption of a closed system. The apologist argument for a finite universe based on Entropy assumes a closed system and finite universe. Begging the question big time.

The universe may well be an open system.

[JimL]

logician bones:


No, I believe in an infinite and perfectly logical mind that created nature because the neccessarily absolute nature of logic and causality demands it.

You need to explain what you mean by absolute logic? The reason for the logical nature you see around you is a result of utility and its evolution, not of some logical input. Eyes don't evolve in the front of your head because they were externally and intelligently designed that way, they evolved that way because in the front of the head is where they turned out to be most useful. If eyes were in the back of heads, you would see that as illogical, but the reason for the logical placement of the eyes is evolution and utility, not intelligent design. At least thats my argument.

I believe Shunya has a favorite fallacy we can spot here. ;)

There's more to the story here, though it takes the analysis on a tangent -- one that ends up showing God must exist as well. I did mention this before too, though. If evolution is possible as you say, then God would evolve as well. In every "region" of infinite existence, minds could evolve and within infinite multiverses, some would connect to expand to become truly infinite (since there is no limit here as we're dealing with the beyond-linear-time side of reality). However, again, there are logical errors in the assumption of atheistic evolution -- not to mention that the existence of that nonlinear time makes it completely unnecessary. Either way, though, there is no good atheistic argument here. Infinite variety, either way, within infinite existence, requires that there be ONE set of 'things' in that existence that is perfectly in harmony, thus the "disharmony is self-limiting" problem doesn't apply to that one being. The only question your point brings up is whether this kind of evolution is within the "possible things" in that infinite possible variety. But an answer either way cannot allow God to be nonexistent.

To put it another way -- your argument is relying on the very premises that mine does; that the set within variety that is most advantageous will last the longest/best, and that what we observe requires logical explanation. Shun's insane excuse is then not an option, and as long as you accept the infinite variety part of this, the very principle of "survival of the fittest" requires that God exist.

The only problem is a mental block that prevents you from connecting these dots.

Erase that mental block -- and any emotional reasons that are propping it up -- and it becomes undeniable.

If I'm interpreting what you are saying correctly, and its not easy, believe me, then by infinite variety you mean to distinguish between the imperfect and the perfect. But you are presupposing in that argument both, that there is a perfection and that within that perfection, there is an infinite variety. First i'm not even sure if that combination makes sense in itself, but the assumption of absolute perfection and logic, is only that, an unfounded premise within which you encapsulate your ready made conclusion.

This is probably a good place to summarize it. A little background on process of analysis here -- basically, when considering multiple options for what the true answer is to a question, you need to look for logically testable ways to determine which answer is correct.

One possibility is that God doesn't exist. That's ruled out by the causality proof. Also various basics like whether "God" would be finite.

If the question is "does the bible prove god,?" Then the so called causality proof is a moot point and outside the scope of the argument.

Another possibility is, as a Nobel prize winner suggested, God would not communicate (or could not; same result, though the causality proof requires a God who CAN). We can test this two ways... The first is to consider the traits of God that the causality proof requires, and see if this conflicts with them. The second is to approach the question with sound logic from the opposite direction; look for claimed messages from a deity that cannot be rationally explained otherwise. Both approaches work to come to belief in the biblical God, and together they make a double proof. Here I'm focusing on the causal route. Tekton has some good arguments from the other route you may be aware of...

First of all the causal proof, is a presupposition, and secondly it is a moot point with respect to whether the biblical narrative itself proves god.

Once you conclude that a God with certain traits exists and that those traits require him to communicate with beings that are not him (esp. when you realize he created them, or for TEs, triggered the chain of events that would lead to their evolution -- either way, "seeing the end from the beginning"), you can look for ways he would make sure we could know WHICH supposed message is from him.

Once again, you are beginning your argument by first presupposing your conclusion. You may have conluded that a god exists with certain traits etc etc etc., but I haven't. If you have first to accept the premise that god exists before even reading the bible, then the bible is not proof to the reader of what actually is, it is only proof to the reader of what it is that he already believes. Your claim was that the bible itself proves of god!

You have to consider things like:

1) What are the abilities he (if you'll pardon the skipping ahead on the pronouns issue -- you can use "it" if you like) has that no other being can possibly have, that he could use to verify his identity? Obviously, his beyond linear time nature and the rest of his omniscience, and his omnipotence and "god mode" abilities would be expected here.

2) What abilities would be much easier for other beings to fake, so he would avoid them? Here is where many atheists and agnostics get off the right path, in going for the lowest credentials of mere visual manifestations. While God can use manifestations as further evidence and for other purposes like for us to relate to him better since he created us as social beings, this would actually be something we'd expect God to avoid.

3) What are the stakes of the message and how would they affect this? Obviously tekton's big issue of the nature of hell and honor/shame are huge factors here, as well as general morality issues and the so-called "problem of evil".

4) What major rules/guidelines/factors does he need to balance with all this? You can probably guess things like "not mind-controlling everybody" and whether the message would go directly to everybody factor in here. I also think the scientific, logical nature of everything and his natural desire for us to relate to him are huge factors too.

A lot of people, especially fundy atheists, have some very interesting ideas to those questions. :P While I think the answer I have is not quite in the realm of 100% proof like the causality proof, I do think it's well within the range of reasonable doubt. Basically, I think his desire for us to truly understand him in an experiential way leads him to want us to figure things out on our own... at least for a time. (Though I think in heaven we'll still get to figure out a lot of things on our own, like furthering advances in science, creating our own art still, etc.)

Basically, normally he needs things to work according to the "machinery" of the physics of the atoms and energy that he arranged in the right "domino chain" (well, not chain, but yeah) setup to lead things to the best overall outcomes. That way we can understand reality's logical nature easier. But those who apply this blindly as an absolute law for every time and place are too simple-minded; that's a false dichotomy. The message is a perfect example of what he would use his credentials for, which includes prophecies that cannot be faked (not that all prophecies can't; credentials aren't the ONLY purpose of prophecy) and other miracles.

Still not sure I see a clear reason why he would use inspiration, but if he did (and I believe he clearly did... minus perhaps some things like some of the laws of Moses), then it makes sense miracles would be used primarily as "nods of approval" for what those particular humans write, and that's what we see proven historically. (This also explains why you won't reliably see miracles nowadays, though they can still happen -- he has to avoid appearing to give credentials for people to add to the Bible. Prior to the book of Revelation, however, this was still needed, so that's why we see miracles used a lot in Israel and not a lot elsewhere. And as for "why just one nation"? Well, it wasn't. Israel was a collection of people from multiple descents who chose loyalty to the culture God advised... or well, they were supposed to -- but examples like Rahab come in here. But it was in one geographic place, and yes, primarily of one descent. Geography is probably the bigger reason, though -- so human issues with getting all the messages together would be more easily overcome!)

Obviously this is a complicated subject and I don't want to go too far down tangents here, but that's some of what I've concluded on it. :)

Well, what you've done is to give me reasons why you believe that the existence of god proves the bible to be true, but you haven't given me reasons for why I should believe that the existence of the bible proves the existence of god.

Think about it -- he's beyond linear time, and everything is logical. The knowledge can't "just happen", right? But because he's beyond linear time, the conclusions are always available wherever needed to keep the perfect harmony that makes him able to be infinite.

Doesn't matter if god is beyond linear time, if god is beyond linear time then knowledge can't be said to come to him in time, i.e. by deduction.

Thought so, as I said in the previous topic. The above should help connect the dots (this is about the infinite variety part). Keep in mind especially that causes are different from their effects (otherwise everything would be stasis), and what I said about a circle not being enough. We must have infinite causes, and they must all be different. Think about what that means.

Tell me what it means, and then i'll think about it.

Here's where quantum mechanics is especially helpful as a modern evidence. Multiple possible states can exist at once. The multiverse comes into play here -- which is why it's so ironic that people like Dawkward try to use it to argue against God lol. Basically, every possible state exists.

Okay, Schroedingers equation, I get the concept.

Well, are minds possible?

Obviously, but whats your point? What is at issue though, i think, is in how you are defining mind.

What is a mind? It's basically interconnected software. Does that have to be limited in size and capability? No, no fundamental reason for such a thing. The internet shows that we can continually increase the total capability of an interconnected software system as much as we want (given the materials), and the only real limits are the physics of the travel time of the processing medium (electricity), design of the hardware and software, and of course decay of the system. We're dealing with the infinite beyond-linear-time realm, though, where none of those things get in the way by definition. Time is not a problem, design is irrelevant when you're rolling all the dice infinite times, and for the same reason that multilinear time is needed in the region of existence that causes the decaying linear universe we observe, that being cannot fall prey to decay, having infinite energy to use anywhere.

Again i think that you are making assumptions about the nature of the mind, about quantum mechanics, about time, not to mention about god himself, and then fitting those assumptions to your a priori conclusion that god exists.

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, your replies pretty much went down the rabbit hole I predicted, Shunya. Sigh. Again, we're not talking about "a first cause."

We still need an explanation here concerning your argument for 'first cause,' 'prior cause,' or 'uncaused cause,' or how every you choose to describe it, because the argument from 'entropy,' and 'principle of causality' do presuppose and conclude a finite universe, a closed system, and 'everything has a beginning,' therefore the necessity of an 'uncaused cause.'

Note the description of the argument below clearly involves 'appealing to ignorance' and 'begging the question' making theist presuppositions to justify the argument.

*hopes Jim will show up and bring some sanity back here lol*

Jim's back, and its no help for your repeated 'logical fallacies,' lol.

[Sparko]

Bones,

you are arguing with people who are trying to logically argue against logic and failing because not only is it self-contradictory, but they don't even understand what logic is.

I don't think it is logical or sane for you to continue.

[seer]

Bones,

you are arguing with people who are trying to logically argue against logic and failing because not only is it self-contradictory, but they don't even understand what logic is.

I don't think it is logical or sane for you to continue.

No he should continue - this is very enjoyable!

[shunyadragon]

Bones,

you are arguing with people who are trying to logically argue against logic and failing because not only is it self-contradictory, but they don't even understand what logic is.

I don't think it is logical or sane for you to continue.

If he cannot take responsibility for his 'logical fallacies,' and explain his arguments without them he might as well give up the thread.

[shunyadragon]

No he should continue - this is very enjoyable!

You do have masochistic tendencies!

I will provide your own personal leather wipes and chains from Amazon if you do not have a set in your closet know, and ah . . . a camera for your entertainment.

. . . or you can explain the 'logical fallacies' in these arguments.

[seer]

You do have masochistic tendencies!

I will provide your own personal leather wipes and chains from Amazon if you do not have a set in your closet know, and ah . . . a camera for your entertainment.

. . . or you can explain the 'logical fallacies' in these arguments.

For instance, you said: False, science is not dependent on 'absolute logic,' because 'absolute logic does not exist from the human perspective.

Of course your point is false, science certainly does depend on absolute logic, for instance the law of non contradiction must be absolute. Without that all science would be nonsense.

[Sparko]

For instance, you said: False, science is not dependent on 'absolute logic,' because 'absolute logic does not exist from the human perspective.

Of course your point is false, science certainly does depend on absolute logic, for instance the law of non contradiction must be absolute. Without that all science would be nonsense.

You could have just asked him if he was absolutely sure there was no absolute logic.

[seer]

You could have just asked him if he was absolutely sure there was no absolute logic.

I don't want to see his head explode - messy and all that...

[shunyadragon]

For instance, you said: False, science is not dependent on 'absolute logic,' because 'absolute logic does not exist from the human perspective.

Of course your point is false, science certainly does depend on absolute logic, for instance the law of non contradiction must be absolute. Without that all science would be nonsense.

Law of contradiction is not absolute. It depends on qualifications of an argument as to what is contradictory and what is not.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Aristotle's discussion of the principle of non-contradiction also raises thorny issues in many areas of modern philosophy, for example, questions about what we are committed to by our beliefs, the relationship between language, thought and the world, and the status of transcendental arguments. Arguments from conflicting appearances have proved remarkably long-lived, and debates about skepticism, realism and anti-realism continue to this day.

© Copyright Original Source

The question is not whether science depends on logic . The question is the claim of 'absolute logic,' which is a fallacy of omniscience.

Source: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

argument from omniscience: (e.g., All people believe in something. Everyone knows that.) An arguer would need omniscience to know about everyone's beliefs or disbeliefs or about their knowledge. Beware of words like "all," "everyone," "everything," "absolute."

© Copyright Original Source

Please define 'absolute logic' that is not simply logic, and has a reliable academic reference.