Datheron

Hm....had a few thoughts as I was eating lunch today. I'm realizing that one of the most productive times occurs as one is feeding one's face....


Anyway, my thoughts wandered mostly around the idea of God and his interactions with logic. As a comparison, let us consider ourselves. We live in a logical universe, hence we are bound by rules and laws of logic; at the same time, we live in a physical universe (currently), hence we are bound by the laws of physics. For each property that our universe holds, there exists a set of laws and rules by which the universe is governed by; for all purposes, it is impossible to deviate from these rules.

If we apply the same reasoning to God's "universe", then given that God himself is bound by the laws of logic, then he must live in a logical world. Furthermore, he is as powerless to deviate from those rules as we are - he cannot create square circles, cannot create rocks that he, by definition, cannot lift, etc. Another way to put it is that while God is in control of the physical universe, the logical universe is not under his jurisdiction.

The problem arises when we couple this with the Cosmological/First cause argument. The argument states that because this universe exists, then it must require a cause. Furthermore, we establish that causality is a property of logic, so that non-material and physical things also have this property. Of course, when this matter comes to God, it is established by definition that God cannot have a cause, regardless of the paradoxes that ensue if one cares to go about that route. Regardless, that is not the focus of my thoughts.

Rather, I was thinking about the God's interactions with the laws of logic. If God had created the laws of logic, then he may manipulate it as freely as he supposedly does the physical ones - the fact that he does not, that he cannot, implies that he did not create these laws. Given that God blossomed into existence in a timeless setting, then we must conclude that the laws of logic and God came into existence at the same "time", with logic having a greater jurisdiction, for it immediately began putting roadblocks around God's "omnipotence".

The question remains, then: who or what created these laws of logic and/or God? For one, we cannot know - we cannot even calculate "probabilities" on whether these things came by chance or design, as we lack a "higher system" to evaluate whether the laws are necessary, just arbitary, or carefully designed - applying logic to logic is a futile self-referential exercise. If the "higher thing" happens to be sentient, then we show that God really isn't God; if it is merely the abstraction we call "nature", then we show that it was nature that created God, not the other way around.

As a matter of fact, the idea of having a binary choice and causality itself comes under fire as one seeks the cause of logic. But, and this is an important distinction, God is not exempt from this question, as he is bound under logic himself. The crux of the matter lies in the fact there exists something outside God's control, which implies that a controller (this is not meant to imply sentiency in the controller) has even greater control.

Ultimately, this reduces to a "God who created God, God that created the God that made God, etc." ad infinitum argument, but I wanted to elaborate on why this is, IMO, a valid and strong argument. Any comments and reprimands on fallacies and problems are of course welcome.

David Gould

After your reprimand under the troll posting, you have shamed me into responding.

And please do not turn into a troll.

This seems in some ways similar to the arguments against God as the author of an objective moral code.

Either the code is binding on God or it is not objective - it cannot be both.

Christians in my experience argue against this by saying that morality is part of God's nature. It binds him but it is not part of him - it does not exist outside him.

I am guessing that they will use a similar argument with regard to logic - God is logical by his nature. It binds him but it is part of him - it does not exist outside him.

On to your post:


"The problem arises when we couple this with the Cosmological/First cause argument. The argument states that because this universe exists, then it must require a cause. Furthermore, we establish that causality is a property of logic, so that non-material and physical things also have this property. Of course, when this matter comes to God, it is established by definition that God cannot have a cause, regardless of the paradoxes that ensue if one cares to go about that route. Regardless, that is not the focus of my thoughts.



With the argument that God has always existed and thus needs no cause combined with the idea that logic is part of God's nature, we end up with the idea that logic always existed and also did not need a cause.


Rather, I was thinking about the God's interactions with the laws of logic. If God had created the laws of logic, then he may manipulate it as freely as he supposedly does the physical ones - the fact that he does not, that he cannot, implies that he did not create these laws.



God does not appear to mess with physical laws, at least not at the moment.
Indeed, the miracles that he is supposed to have caused are not in my opinion miracles because they necessarily violate laws of physics. They are miracles purely because of the mythological context in which they occur.

And absence of the alteration of logical laws does not mean that God cannot alter them. He may simply have not chosen to do so, or done so in ways that it it simpossible for us to notice.



Given that God blossomed into existence in a timeless setting, then we must conclude that the laws of logic and God came into existence at the same "time", with logic having a greater jurisdiction, for it immediately began putting roadblocks around God's "omnipotence".



Hmmm. I do not think that God is supposed to have come into existence - he always was. And so was logic, because it is part of him. I do not know if you can argue that a part of youself has greater jurisdiction than you do.



The question remains, then: who or what created these laws of logic and/or God?



Logic was not created - it is merely a property of God.


For one, we cannot know - we cannot even calculate "probabilities" on whether these things came by chance or design, as we lack a "higher system" to evaluate whether the laws are necessary, just arbitary, or carefully designed - applying logic to logic is a futile self-referential exercise. If the "higher thing" happens to be sentient, then we show that God really isn't God; if it is merely the abstraction we call "nature", then we show that it was nature that created God, not the other way around.

As a matter of fact, the idea of having a binary choice and causality itself comes under fire as one seeks the cause of logic. But, and this is an important distinction, God is not exempt from this question, as he is bound under logic himself. The crux of the matter lies in the fact there exists something outside God's control, which implies that a controller (this is not meant to imply sentiency in the controller) has even greater control.

Ultimately, this reduces to a "God who created God, God that created the God that made God, etc." ad infinitum argument, but I wanted to elaborate on why this is, IMO, a valid and strong argument."



I think that Christians will insist that logic is a property of God and not independant. Thus, there is no infinite regress.

I am unsure, however, what the true consequences of logic being a property of God would actually be. I think there could be some chinks in the armour there to exploit but am not that good at doing that sort of thing.

Interesting, though. I gave me some insight into how a Christian thinks about these issues (when I was a Christian, I never thought this deeply about things).

Again, no troll-turns allowed!

Datheron

David Gould,

Haha....not really a chance of that. It's just so messy and all; and I'd have to adapt a new typing style, not to mention to make effort to be ignorant. Methinks it takes more skill to troll, sometimes, when one is not used to trolling.

BTW, don't let me "guilt" you into anything.

But it appears to me that we have only shifted the question: why is it such that God plays a cruel joke on himself by having a part of himself be uncontrollable, yet a part of him nevertheless? In some ways, I wanted to draw an analogy to that of the first cause argument - the fact that the life exists in the universe as a result of a set of constants in such a narrow range implies design - and apply it to God and his logic.

But that's my problem with that explanation; it only addresses what is necessarily asked without really stopping to think about the consequences of its statements. What do we mean when we say that logic is a part of God, that they do not require causes, that they are timeless? They are good refutations, I'm sure, if only the details were to be revealed as they are given.

Well, they are miracles that perhaps not outright break the laws of physics, but for the most part, a lot of mythologies contain miracles that twist physics terribly without regard to the consequences that we now know such things would involve. For instance, think about that example on the calculations showing how it is virtually impossible for Santa to send presents to children all around the world. Apply that to the Flood, for example, and there is that application of some miraculous event that is to be expected of a people ignorant of modern science.

And the latter is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. I mean, I'm sure we can just kind of sweep everything under the rug and look purely at God from what he reveals, but such blind acceptance without thought is more typical of the average Christian congregation. Alas, we're hardly that, right?

You're right, if we grant the premise that God has always existed and that logic is a part of him. I wanted to make a more general argument about Gods in general, but then the technicalities get in the way - some Gods have always existed, others bloom into existence, etc. Even within a specific religion (Christianity), I have heard both stories, so it's hard to get something straight.

Well, for one, it would run into serious problems with the rationale behind God's existence and his...composition, so to speak. In addition to doing such a horrible job in creating and maintaining the universe and his chosen creatures, we now have a God who has a part of himself that he must accomodate to. This also begs the question: why is God like this? Once again, I want to avoid head-wavy explanations of "he just is" and "it is meaningless to talk of this", for the exact same arguments can be made of a completely naturalistic universe, yet that obviously makes God obsolete.

LOL!

Ah well....at least it did some good to someone. Thanks for the reply.

Draygomb

If one allows that god can pop into existence without cause then how can one say there is only one god?

And If gods can pop into existence why not universes?

Datheron

Draygomb,

Well, as David pointed out, the weak link here lies in the fact that we're not sure whether God did indeed pop into existence. If we grant that premise, then yes, one of my points was to illustrate that we are arbitarily giving God special privileges.

Dr. Retard

Since Hume, few philosophers make causality a "property of logic". That is, X causing Y is usually thought to be a consequence of physical laws, which are supposed to be somehow weaker than logical laws. For instance, John Mackie's INUS condition for causation requires that a cause not be sufficient for its effect. Logical entailment is supposed to be too strong for causality.

According to most theistic philosophers, God's existence and the laws of logic are both necessary features of existence. On this view, it's not that there is something higher than God responsible for both his existence and the laws of logic. It's that God's existence is just one of the essential features of existence, alongside the laws of logic. Everything else usually gets credited to God, but sometimes people put moral facts alongside God and logic as another essential feature of the universe -- one that's "out of God's hands".

To complaints that God is then not omnipotent because these essential features are out of his hands, the reply is usually "So what? It's no flaw in God to be unable to alter essential features; if this isn't 'omnipotence' the way you see it, then it's just as good as omnipotence -- after all, it's impossible to alter essential features! The rest of existence is still completely under God's control, so get over it".

Of course, some theists try to tie these essential features all together as part of God's nature. On this view, God couldn't change logic, not because logic was an essential feature apart from God, but because logic was part of God's essential nature, which is also out of God's hands.

And this is usually taken to be false. Things like logic are supposed to be beyond anyone's control. That's why they're considered essential and non-contingent.

Later...

God wouldn't have to have played a cruel joke on himself. His nature is beyond his control. It's one of those essential features of the universe. By way of contrast, presumably, his decisions are under his control, since he's alleged to have free will. And I don't see the analogy with the fine-tuning argument; maybe if you drew that thought out a bit more, I'd change my responses.

You have committed my "begs the question" pet peeve: to beg the question is not to prompt some related question, but to presume very contentious premises that your opponent will not accept.

Triviality aside, I'm with you in seeing no reason for accepting "God's existence is a brute fact", but denying "the natural world is a brute fact". But there's nothing inconsistent about doing just that. A theist could agree with both of us and just say "Even though we can see no reason for saying that God's existence is brute and that the natural world is contingent, that's the way the world is. The natural world is dependent on a necessary God." Such a theist couldn't use the cosmological argument, since she admits that we naturalists have no reason to buy its premises, but she could still hold the conclusion (perhaps due to religious experience). God could be specially privileged without us knowing why.

DeadLogic

What is logic? Is it some entity hovering over us, imposing its will upon us? No. You're talking about the "laws" of logic as though they are some cosmic force that "binds" us, but what we call "laws" of logic are actually descriptions or explanations of how reality operates. Having said this, let's turn to this question: Can these "laws" be violated or "broken"? Well, since these "laws" are not some "force" which rules over us, but rather descriptions, I would say that there is nothing to violate. Logic is not some entity or being with power that could be "denied."

Let me state this another way: If something (anything) exists in reality (or if any proposition corresponds with reality), then it must exist in a certain way. This "certain way" is described by humans through the said "laws" of logic.

For example, take the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction CANNOT be true - not because some "law" is lurking overhead imposing its will on us, but because if something exists in reality, it must behave a "certain way" (i.e., "logically"). I cannot be alive and not alive at the same time and in the same relationship - such a notion is a contradiction, and is thus absurd. I am either alive or not alive. I can't be both at the same time. Notice that the statement, "I am both alive and not alive at the same time and in the same relationship" isn't really saying anything at all! What idea is it communicating? It's communicating NOTHING. (like I said, the statement is absurd).

Can God make a "square circle" or a "four-sided triangle"? No, because a "square circle" is not a thing (a "square circle" simply is not). Reality, whether we speak of God or man, is what it is, and logic describes how reality is. That which is contradictory is not possible, even for God.

Datheron

Dr. Retard,

Yea, I realized that this may very well be the case; but if we argue that causality doesn't bind as strongly as logic, then the First Cause argument fails from the start. What I wanted to show was with the premises and manuveurs of the CA, I would get these kind of contradictory results with God.

But then the question arises - by what intelligence or natural thing made this property that God cannot control? Basically, I'm applying all the arguments that theists make to necessite the existence of a God as an ultimate cause to God himself, and noting that I do have the laws of logic as analogous to the laws of physics that bind our universe. I mean, I think you agree below that this presupposition is unnecessarily complicated.

But their source? Remember that I'm arguing from the standpoint that the theist has accepted all the arguments for a first cause God.

Right - I will keep that in mind.

Exactly - hence this argument is really addressed to a specific audience that has already accepted a specific set of assumptions and presuppositions; you could say that this is catered to the first cause crowd more than anything else. Of course, the flaws that you see with the argument apply just as well to the CA itself; it is much the same as showing that the Bible is unreliable by internal contradictions, or by external contradictions - both ways defeat the argument.

Datheron

DeadLogic,

I note the irony here.

But isn't that true of all laws? They designate how systems operate; the physical laws, for example, describe how our physical and material universe operates.

Then what of something that is not in our reality? If we take your definition that all in our reality must operate under the laws of logic, then doesn't that imply that there exists something outside our reality which is not under these laws of logic? Then, given that God himself is also under these laws, then doesn't something outside our reality "more powerful" than this God?

But that's because we, as logical beings, cannot understand anything that is not logical. By a similar token, I can ask what it means to be timeless and eternal, to be infinite in stature and power - such questions cannot be answered in detail, only abstracted and hand-waved over so not to alert the theist that he really can't make sense of such qualities either.

For example, what does it mean for God to exist "without cause"? I cannot comprehend the idea that something can exist without having some cause preceding it - I cannot even comprehend God not existing in time. Although we may talk about how God is outside of time, note that this is a necessary abstraction to even make sense of talking about God at all, and if we explore this in detail, we will find that we have no idea what these terms mean.

Um...I hate to sound like a broken record here, but I ask: Who or what created reality?

DeadLogic

Datheron,

Yes.


I'm not talking about "our reality" as though there are "other" realities out there somewhere. I'm simply talking about reality - i.e., "whatever is." The word "reality" means "the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence" (dictionary.com). All reality functions according to the laws of logic.


Given what the word "reality" means, no creator is implied or denied. Even if NOTHING existed, that would still be "reality." If God exists and the universe is his creation, that would be reality.