Datheron

Deadlogic,

I'm saying, basically, that if we are to grant the premise that the laws of logic are simply universal by presupposition, then there is nothing stopping us from granting the laws of physics from being universal as well, and in the process, imply that the physical universe is all of reality.

Yes, that's basically the blunt of the argument. A problem that I see with your objection is that we still have not determined what logic is - whether it is your view that is correct, or that it is mine. Furthermore, even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, you're drawing on some undeclared fact that entities are "stronger" than non-entities, for they can somehow actively impose their "will" upon us and force us to act in line with the rules. I do not understand how this argument holds up at all, not without a lot of explanation on your part.

Obviously, though, that is been discussed before; this is perhaps the 5th-6th time I've repeated myself in saying that I do not want to go down the route where we simply deny that the universe necessarily requires a cause. We can do that on another thread.

DeadLogic

Datheron,

<strong> I don't see why you'd make such an inference. Logic is not equivalent to the laws of physics.


<strong> Entities are "stronger" than non-entities? When did I say THAT? I'm not even sure what that means, but I'm pretty sure this "undeclared fact" has nothing to do with anything I've been saying in this thread.

The problem is not defining logic. We both know what logic is. What is in question is whether the laws of logic truly are "universal," or whether there is an aspect of reality where logic does not apply. My view is simply that we must hold the presupposition of "universal" logic in order to make any kind of sense at all. If there is ANY part of reality (whether physical or metaphysical) where logic does not apply, then the use of logic in any other part that "does apply" (if that even makes sense anymore) becomes invalid.

Datheron

Deadlogic,

But that was one of my points. Why isn't physics analogous to logic? Both are a set of well-defined laws by which we are controlled; there are abstractions possible to try to understand a physics-less universe, but much like logic, I argue that this is not actual understanding, but rather projecting that universe into our physical universe.

I apologize, then; I had thought that you wanted to imply that since the universe wasn't some entity imposing its will, then it must be "weaker"...or, in hindsight, "stronger" as it is unable to be broken by definition.

That's precisely why I included the disclaimer if that even makes any sense.

First of all, we haven't really agreed on what logic [b]is[/i] - is it a set of laws that can be broken, or is it more of a non-entity as you say, with no real way to "attack and break" the laws?

What you're arguing, that we must hold logic as universal to make any sense, makes the assumption that existence hinges on logic, which I don't see as necessarily true. True, we may not understand such existence (and hence we usually define existence in accordance to logic), but we really cannot know whether anything can "exist" outside of logic, assuming of course that there is an "outside". You may argue that since we have no way of knowing and understanding, we ought to not think about it and cut it out with Occam's Razor, but such an argument also works against the First Cause God behind naturalism (God created the Big Bang and evolution) and the Deist God.

WJ

Logical paradox exists in words and concepts.

The incarnation of Jesus exists in words and concepts.

The concept of incarnation (Jesus three persons same time, same respect...) contradicts logic.

All of the above uses words to convey concepts.

Therefore, the concept of God both exists, and contradicts human logic.

As it should be.


Walrus

Draygomb

If we define everything that exists as existing logically then there is nothing that exists that is nonlogical. I didn't use illogical because illogical concepts exist. So something that is nonlogical can't exist even though the illogical concept of it can.

WJ

What I'm about to say is false. You might say I've just spoken truly.

Walrus
----------
God exists, do you?

Draygomb

The statement "This statement is false" is neither True nor false, but merely nonsense.

Datheron

WJ,

Interesting post, WJ.

I've read your other post demonstrating that logical paradox does exist as a concept - great. What are you trying to say, though? The reason why these paradoxes exist is simply because they are as you state - abstract concepts. I can write "square circle", but does that mean that I can then produce one? I can write 2 + 2 = 5, but does that mean that I can then go and prove that this is true?

Hence, I find your conclusion that God is a concept to be true, granted that we clarify what we mean by such a declaration. As are my examples above, God here can be nothing more than an abstract concept; he exists as such, and not in reality as we would hope.

Draygomb

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.

WJ

Dray and Dath!

"The statement "This statement is false" is neither True nor false, but merely nonsense."

It may be nonsense, but it exists.

"I can write "square circle", but does that mean that I can then produce one? I can write 2 + 2 = 5, but does that mean that I can then go and prove that this is true?"

In some other logically possible world, yes. In fact, don't two halves comprise one brain?

"As are my examples above, God here can be nothing more than an abstract concept; he exists as such, and not in reality as we would hope."

Why would we hope though? If God was just a mere abstract concept, there would be no point in using the word 'hope'. So, you would have to make a case for your reality. What is your reality? If you use any word that hints at consciousness (existence)if you will, then you lose. And that would be logically impossible not to do so. Because, it requires the use of consciousness to exist and logicize using words.

The phenomenon of God (let alone consciousness) was not intended to be logically possible.

Walrus