WJ

Dray,

"If everything that is a concept is real then because I have the concept that the universe exists without god(s) it must be real.
Therefore god doesn't exist.'

In your case, truth is subjectivity. Otherwise prove objectively that God does not exist. You can't. I can though. Ha!

Walrus

Draygomb

WJ

Really? Go for it.

WJ

Dray,

Ahh, you hurt my feelings. Oh well.

Walrus
----------
Truth is Subjectivity

Datheron

WJ,

As a side note, WJ, try to use the <quote> functions provided. It makes replying easier. Also, you might want to change your saying to "truth is subjective", b/c I do not believe "truth is subjectivity" is correct grammartically.

Depends on what you mean by existence. You seem to want to equivocate the two, but I'll get into that later.

Indeed: 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. That, as far as I know, does not violate any known law of mathematics or logic.

You're just going all over the place here.

First off, I said "we hope" as a rhetorical question; obviously, as I'm trying to show that God does not exist, I do not "hope" that he actually exists. I'm unsure whether you actually caught on to this, but regardless, that point is moot.

Second, you make the point that my consciousness is required for existence - why? That is a requirement and the definition for sentiency, not necessarily existence. (this is the question of whether a tree falling in the forest is a sound if nothing hears it) Furthermore, what does my reality have to do with anything? You're building a strawman, drawing it as if I was a solipsist and asking me to rationalize my position; since I am not, I am under no obligation to do such a thing anyway.

Then we're in the definition game, which is pointless as proven by the futile arguments of presuppositionism. If we can simply define God to be unknownable, incomprehensible, and logically impossible, then there is no argument; you are simply asserting a case that you cannot be tested, cannot be proven, cannot be rationalized or even understood.

bgponder

Walrus,

You say:
Please enlighten this country boy as to how the "phenomenon" (as in phenomenology?) of God was intended at all, whether logically or factually?

Peace and cornbread, Barry

Valis

Quick thought:

I think it is misleading to refer to "laws" of logic - because the word "law" has connected to it the idea that the principal involved could somehow be contravened in some imaginable way.

In point of fact, "laws" of logic can *not* be "contravened." More than that - the very notion of "contravention" of logic is nonsensical. Statements formulating logical principals aren't rules that things follow but rather descriptions of how things *are.*

The reason that's important is because (if it is a valid insight) it shows talk of being "limited" by the "laws" of logic is not really valid. To note that processes procede according to principals which have been formulated as statements of logic does not show that those processes are somehow "limited" by logic - rather it is simply an observation that those processes procede as such processes procede.

Did that make sense to you guys?

-Kris

Datheron

Valis,

So, in summary, you are saying that the term "laws of logic" is misleading because it implies something which then can be contravened, broken, and altered, correct? Furthermore, you establish that logic was not created and then our reality applied, but rather that our it is the result of observing our reality as is, right?

First of all, I agree with your latter statement, in that these laws are observations of how things are. Indeed, these are laws that are established by experience, and not by royal decree. However, I disagree that this rules out the possibility that they can be broken. We have to look at the domain of the laws themselves; to what or whom do they apply? If something exists outside the laws' jurisdictions, then it obviously does not need to adhere to its rulings, and hence have "broken" it by being outside of our observations, so to speak.

Basically, that is what I'm arguing - is there such a thing that exists outside of logic, and hence is not bound by its laws? This works on a lot of theist arguments for God that I have heard, mostly on the concept of duality of definition - there exists a greatest being, a first cause, etc. so that our definitions of cause and effect, of great and less, make sense. The same can apply arguably to any law - there exists something not bound by the laws of physics in order for us to make sense of physics, and here, there exists something not bound by the laws of logic, hence we understand it.

Hm....I'm realizing that there are a lot of angles that this can be approached from.

DeadLogic

Datheron,

<strong>
Logic isn't the same as physics. The laws of physics are subject to logic (Aristotle called logic the *organon* of science), but logic is subject to nothing. We can conceive a world with different laws of physics, but we can't conceive a world with different laws of logic. One cannot not use logic. One has to use logic in any attempt to refute logic. To deny logic or say that it is false or not true or applicable to a certain topic entails the use of logic in the very assertion itself (thus, it is true or applicable).

The very distinction between true or false exists or has meaning if and only if logic is applicable. Without logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) there would be no such beasts as "true" or "false." To make the claim that "there is a realm where logic does not apply" is to rely on logic as being universally binding - otherwise the claim makes no sense at all, in that it can be neither "true" nor "false."

To deny that logic is universal is to affirm that a contradictory statement can be true - are you willing to say that? Consequently, if a contradictory proposition is true ANYWHERE in reality (whether in "our world" or "beyond" - if I can use such idioms), then the use of logic ANYWHERE is useless (whether in "our world or "beyond"). If you understand the basic laws of validity in logic, you'll know that any argument is valid if it contains one premise that is contradictory. If ANY proposition in reality is contradictory and also "true," then ANY conclusion can be proved true, since all one needs to do is insert that true contradictory premise in an argument (if you don't understand basic "logic 101" stuff, this won't make sense to you).

So we must hold logic as universal to make any sense. And existence hinges on logic, although it is more accurate to say that TRUTH hinges on logic, and truth is that which describes existence (reality) correctly.

After reading through this thread again, I must admit that I'm not entirely sure what your argument against the first cause argument is. Could you state your argument simply, in premise/conclusion form?

Datheron

DeadLogic,

Can we? I'm not talking about the mere shuffling of constants - can we formulate a set of hypothetical alternate physical laws that would be conherent and sufficient? While I agree that physics are "lower" than logic on the hierarchy, I do not presume that we would be able to be without either, and our discussion can only stand on an abstract ground of thought.

Precisely - claims and prepositions are formal logical devices, and thus requires logic. On the other hand, existence is not dependent on logic at all; the most we can say is that if it does exist, we would have no way to comprehend it.

....but that is merely a violation in logic, which is what we expect given that logic does not apply anyway, correct?

I would say that such is a logical proposition, and given that we do not have logic to work with, it cannot be answered.

You mean the property that implication, -&gt;, in that F -&gt; x; x = {T, F} is true, correct?

But of course, you realize that such a statement is made from logic, and once again, not expected to apply where logic is not present. Furthermore, we recognize that when we're working within the domain of logic, indeed everything will work as they are supposed to. If there exists any contradictory premises out there, then they have no bearing on us within the sphere of logic.

That is debatable as well. The idea of correctness and accuracy only makes sense based in logic; it remains that still nothing is said of an incorrect being, or an inaccurate thing. We can only say that it is not of our understanding nor of our present reality.

After trying to do such a thing, and having no real formal education in logic (other than a tidbit for use in mathematical arenas), I'm finding it hard to satisfy your request. Simply, the argument is not one based purely on logic; rather, it is based on analogy.

Given that we live in a physical and logical universe, our existence is bound by both physics and logic. Furthermore, we grant that we had a beginning, and that beginning requires a cause, God.

Now, given God, he lives par logical rules. He created physics and hence our universe; his superiority and designation as God is based on this distinction.

Then can it be that there exists something beyond God which created logic, and is thus superior to God because it is not bound at all? Our relationship to God is thus analogous to God's relationship with it.

And because of this, almost every objection I can think of that can arise from this proposition can be defeated by the same arguments for God, drawn from multiple arguments based on First Cause - Comsological, Fine-tuning, etc. For example, fine-tuning states that the chances of life are so minute that only an intelligent designer could have created our universe. By the same token, what are the chances of the existence of such a sophisicated God, a physics-creator? We must suppose an even more intelligent creator.

Your beef here is that we cannot comprehend anything non-logical, which I agree. However, I present the analogous situation with us and God; we cannot comprehend anything not residing within physics, yet we state that God is not of this physical universe. What of multiple dimensions of time? The absence of time? An existence uncaused? Such ideas can only be said via abstract linguistic terms, but they cannot be reconciled in any other fashion. In other words, much of how God works is mysterious - which is precisely how I propose this "it" works in order to make God.

DeadLogic

<strong> We can think of a world where the laws of physics are different; that is, we can imagine what such a world would be like, and it's not really that difficult to do. But we cannot imagine what a world with "different laws of logic" would be like. We can't think of what contradictory propositions would be like in reality because contradictory propositions describe NOTHING. They are utterly meaningless statements.


<strong> Existence is not "dependent" on logic in the sense that logic is a causal agent - but any accurate description of reality must employ logic.


<strong> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


<strong> You're proving my point here. We cannot talk about the ontological status of reality or offer ANY description of reality without the applicability of logic. The clear implication is: Logic must be universal.


<strong> As I said before, logic is not some thing or force imposing its will upon us, and so neither is it some "domain" or "sphere" in which we are trapped and forced to comply.

<strong> It's only debatable if the laws of logic are applicable, which again demonstrates my point.

You seem to be confusing logic with epistemology. There are many things we do not yet understand, yet that doesn't imply that these mysterious things are "beyond the sphere of logic" (to use such crude terms).


<strong> I'm not sure how this refutes the first cause argument. Firstly, if logic was indeed "created," then there's a creator (a "first cause" perhaps) of some sort. If this creator is "superior to God" then that creator IS God, and whatever we've been calling "God" is in fact something else. So I don't see how that does anything to affect the first cause argument.

Secondly, and more simply, the laws of logic weren't "created," as though contradictory circumstances were possible before and now, after the creation of these "laws," they are not.


<strong> Again, "mysterious" doesn't mean "beyond logic."

And my "beef" is this: that which is "non-logical" (i.e., that to which the laws of logic do not apply) is non-existent.