Did God make the rules?

[Meow Mix]

Meow, why couldn't God have created logic? There is no reason why A = -A couldn't have been possible before God said "Hey, cut that out. You're not allowed to do that anymore."

You're argument fails because you assume your conclusion: Namely, that logic always existed, and therefore takes precedence over God.

You've contradicted yourself in your hypothetical.

Who do you suppose could have said "hey, cut that out?"

God?

God = God? Necessarily so.

See the contradiction?

Identity is incorrigible, which in epistemology means that even attempting to negate it must assume its truth. No matter how you word it, no matter what you do, any attempt to deny the ontological necessity of identity will self-refute.

"It's possible that identity is false." It's possible that what is false? Identity. (Identity = identity)

"It's possible God created identity." It's possible what created identity? God. (God = God)

Any such attempt puts the cart before the horse. It is not rationally possible to doubt identity or to suppose it's contingent on anything; that is an absolute fact. By absolute I'm not just putting a strong emphasis on it being "most likely true, times a google zillion billion" or anything like that. By "absolutely true" I mean that the statement "Identity may be false or contingent" is infinitely justified to be false.

This is one of the rare examples of a knowledge that humans can know absolutely, without even the remotest possibility of the knowledge being wrong. This is an absolute knowledge humans can possess; that identity is efficacious and ontologically necessarily existent. Any human who attempts to disagree, no matter how cleverly, ultimately self-refutes.

 

[Meow Mix]

"A thing is itself, and only itself."

Except when it isn't.

If something isn't what it is then it never was that thing to begin with.

For instance consider an oasis. A limited, fallible observer doesn't know absolutely whether there is water or whether it's an illusion.

However in reality (even if a fallible observer can never know which is true) there is either an oasis or it's a mirage.

If something exists at all, it must exist as something. That thing that it exists as is what it is in reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

A = A.

An apple is an apple.

If it isn't an apple then it isn't an apple, it's something else (in which case it still is what it is). Say that someone sets down the most perfectly lifelike plastic apple that's ever existed.

"That apple is an apple," a fallible observer might say.

But in reality, it still is what it is (and can't be anything that it isn't), even if the observer doesn't know that.

If in reality it's a plastic apple then it is a plastic apple, even if 100% of humans that look at it mistakenly believe it's an organic apple.

We might not be able to absolutely know that particular things are what we perceive -- my computer screen might not exist because my mind might be the product of a brain in a vat for instance -- but we can know absolutely that whatever actually exists, exists as what it is and can't be anything other than what it is.

Make more sense?

To exist is to exist as something, to be something is to be defined, to be defined is to be limited, to be limited as something other than what something is not is identity.

 

[Meow Mix]

Defined by... whom, exactly?

Different context of "definition." God can't be God without identity. What God "is" is God's definition, we're not talking about the context of definition where humans explain what a word means. Think of the term "defining line." There's a defining line between what is a circle and what is a square.

Is God a sock and nothing but a sock? Is God a human being and nothing but a human being?

Definitions tell us what something is by also telling us what it isn't. Being unable to be something is identity. My chair is unable to also be a rock because it's a chair -- if it were a rock, then it would be a rock. A = A, something is what it is if it exists at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

As I said before, identity is a statement. Are you saying God is a statement?

Identity isn't a statement. The Law of Identity is a statement that describes identity, but the thing itself exists as more than just an idea in sentient minds. It still exists even without sentient minds, so cannot be a "statement."

 

[Meow Mix]

sojourner, this does not get you out of the problem outlined by Meow Mix. She is basically stating that the fact that God is God (and that he couldn't be "not God") shows that logic (and specifically the rule of identity) is more powerful than God, ie God is subject to a rule of logic.

My stance is that, sure, at some point God could have been "not God". Or he could have been both God and not God. Why not? Just because the rule is in place now does not mean that it always had to have been in place.

It has always necessarily been in place; which is what it means to be incorrigible.

Consider the nonexistence of identity. Let's say that "identity existing" is X.

¬X.

Does ¬X = ¬X? Is it possible for identity to not exist but exist?

As you can see, this is impossible. Assuming the nonexistence of identity in fact assumes identity is true and so self-contradicts.

Identity is incorrigible, ontologically necessary... it's not possible for it not to exist. Ever. Even the hypothetical nonexistence of identity exemplifies identity.

 

[Falvlun]

It has always necessarily been in place; which is what it means to be incorrigible.

Consider the nonexistence of identity. Let's say that "identity existing" is X.

¬X.

Does ¬X = ¬X? Is it possible for identity to not exist but exist?

As you can see, this is impossible. Assuming the nonexistence of identity in fact assumes identity is true and so self-contradicts.

It is only impossible because the current laws of logic state that it is impossible. If those laws of logic were at some point nonexistent, or not in force, then it would be possible for God to simultaneously exist and not exist, just like it would be possible for identity to exist and not exist.

Identity is incorrigible, ontologically necessary... it's not possible for it not to exist. Ever. Even the hypothetical nonexistence of identity exemplifies identity.

I agree; it is necessary as things stand. But things didn't need to always stand this way.

 

[Meow Mix]

It is only impossible because the current laws of logic state that it is impossible. If those laws of logic were at some point nonexistent, or not in force, then it would be possible for God to simultaneously exist and not exist, just like it would be possible for identity to exist and not exist.

Two things here.

One is that it's demonstrably false that identity could ever not exist.

Two is that suggesting that it possibly could have not existed at one point self-contradicts and if it somehow doesn't self-contradict then it's noncognitive and therefore can't be uttered by any rational human.

Either way you can't win this point; and that's not me being a b**** or cocky. Identity truly is incorrigible.

Though I've already said it, think carefully about it for a second. Let's assume that there was a point in time where identity didn't exist.

At this time, did identity exist?

If you say "no," then you are agreeing that identity was fully in force at the time, thus negating the original hypothetical. If identity didn't exist before identity didn't exist then identity existed the whole time. It's as self-contradictory as saying married-bachelor or square-circle.

So let me ask you:

1) Before identity existed, did identity exist?

2) Does the state of identity not existing allow the existence of identity existing?

3) Can identity exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect?

-----------------------

If you answer "no" to (1) then you are agreeing identity existed, since you're saying that non-identity = non-identity. Thus you refute yourself.

If you answer "no" to (2) then you are agreeing identity exists, since you're saying that "not-identity" can't possibly be "the existence of identity," which is identity.

If you answer "no" to (3) then you are agreeing identity exists, since you're saying not-identity can't also be identity at the same time and in the same respect, which is identity.

If you answer "yes" to any of the questions you are refuting yourself by self-contradiction.

Conclusion: no matter what you answer, identity still exists. It's impossible for it to be otherwise. Identity isn't something that "came into being" at a point in time, it's not something that's possible to not exist. It's necessarily existent, meaning that if there is existence at all (and even if there isn't existence of anything else) identity still exists and necessarily so. It isn't possible to doubt under any circumstances.

If you argue that it could have not-existed in some illogical, unfathomable way then you are guilty of the fallacy of special pleading and must provide justification for your assertion. The problem is that any justification you attempt to give will self-refute due to identity being incorrigible.

Can you at least settle on the premise that if you are a human being you must admit the efficacy of identity absolutely?

 

[sojourner]

Then God cannot be identity, because identity is perfectly defined.

well, apparently it isn't, or we'd be able to perfectly define God.

 

[sojourner]

sojourner, this does not get you out of the problem outlined by Meow Mix. She is basically stating that the fact that God is God (and that he couldn't be "not God") shows that logic (and specifically the rule of identity) is more powerful than God, ie God is subject to a rule of logic.

My stance is that, sure, at some point God could have been "not God". Or he could have been both God and not God. Why not? Just because the rule is in place now does not mean that it always had to have been in place.

"God is God" only because we identify God in that way. But in a universe where God is, our perceptions are immaterial when compared to God's Being.

 

[sojourner]

But this is special pleading. Also, this ignores the fact that identity still works in the hypothetical absence of a god.

Identity works, but in a completely different paradigm. If God is God, then identity is dependent upon God. If God does not exist, then identity is dependent upon us.

1) If you're willing to go out on a limb and hypothesize a universe without a god where other things can still exist -- just hypothetically -- then obviously the things that exist would still be what they are, right? So identity is not god, it is external to god.

In that world, only human perception matters, and is the basis for reality. So, in this case, you are correct.

However:

2) If you can't imagine a world without a god where other things still exist, then my point is still true. You would have "nothingness." But then if I ask the question "Given nothingness, can even a tiny speck of somethingness exist?" and you answer "No," then you are admitting that identity still exists since nothingness is limited to being nothingness (it can't be somethingness, not even a little). Identity would still exist in that scenario. It is still external to god.

You're assuming here that God can either exist or not exist, which still places our perception as the paramount measure of reality. But God does exist. God is existence. God isn't "nothing." God is. Therefore, our perceptions are measured against that reality. What we perceive as either "nothing" or "something" is based upon ... God.

A lesser, but no less valid case against your argument, is that saying identity is sentient in some unknowable way is committing the fallacy of special pleading. Fallacies are not good arguments; therefore you can't rationally make that argument unless you have some kind of justification to support it.

It's only a fallacy if God is not Sentience.

 

[sojourner]

You've contradicted yourself in your hypothetical.

Who do you suppose could have said "hey, cut that out?"

God?

God = God? Necessarily so.

See the contradiction?

Identity is incorrigible, which in epistemology means that even attempting to negate it must assume its truth. No matter how you word it, no matter what you do, any attempt to deny the ontological necessity of identity will self-refute.

"It's possible that identity is false." It's possible that what is false? Identity. (Identity = identity)

"It's possible God created identity." It's possible what created identity? God. (God = God)

Any such attempt puts the cart before the horse. It is not rationally possible to doubt identity or to suppose it's contingent on anything; that is an absolute fact. By absolute I'm not just putting a strong emphasis on it being "most likely true, times a google zillion billion" or anything like that. By "absolutely true" I mean that the statement "Identity may be false or contingent" is infinitely justified to be false.

This is one of the rare examples of a knowledge that humans can know absolutely, without even the remotest possibility of the knowledge being wrong. This is an absolute knowledge humans can possess; that identity is efficacious and ontologically necessarily existent. Any human who attempts to disagree, no matter how cleverly, ultimately self-refutes.

Thank you for ontologically proving God.

 

[sojourner]

"A thing is itself, and only itself."



If something isn't what it is then it never was that thing to begin with.

For instance consider an oasis. A limited, fallible observer doesn't know absolutely whether there is water or whether it's an illusion.

However in reality (even if a fallible observer can never know which is true) there is either an oasis or it's a mirage.

If something exists at all, it must exist as something. That thing that it exists as is what it is in reality, even if we don't perceive it correctly.

A = A.

An apple is an apple.

If it isn't an apple then it isn't an apple, it's something else (in which case it still is what it is). Say that someone sets down the most perfectly lifelike plastic apple that's ever existed.

"That apple is an apple," a fallible observer might say.

But in reality, it still is what it is (and can't be anything that it isn't), even if the observer doesn't know that.

If in reality it's a plastic apple then it is a plastic apple, even if 100% of humans that look at it mistakenly believe it's an organic apple.

We might not be able to absolutely know that particular things are what we perceive -- my computer screen might not exist because my mind might be the product of a brain in a vat for instance -- but we can know absolutely that whatever actually exists, exists as what it is and can't be anything other than what it is.

Make more sense?

To exist is to exist as something, to be something is to be defined, to be defined is to be limited, to be limited as something other than what something is not is identity.

Yeah, but we often perceive incorrectly, then force the improper identity onto something and call it good. Sort of like what you're doing with identity. You're basing identity upon our perception -- what we perceive as "identity."

 

[sojourner]

Different context of "definition." God can't be God without identity. What God "is" is God's definition, we're not talking about the context of definition where humans explain what a word means. Think of the term "defining line." There's a defining line between what is a circle and what is a square.

Is God a sock and nothing but a sock? Is God a human being and nothing but a human being?

Definitions tell us what something is by also telling us what it isn't. Being unable to be something is identity. My chair is unable to also be a rock because it's a chair -- if it were a rock, then it would be a rock. A = A, something is what it is if it exists at all.

God is God because God is completely Other than we are. Yet, God is also God, precisely because God became Incarnate -- became One of us. How do we define that? We can't. Why? Because identity is God's purview -- not ours.

 

[Falvlun]

Meow, I don't know how else to explain. You are using logic to prove that logic is necessary. Don't you see how that can appear circular? You claim that "identity" is incorrigible but you can only prove that by appealing to the very laws you are claiming are incorrigible.

If we imagine an existence "without logic"-- admittedly rather impossible since our brains are wired with logic-- then there would be no such thing as a contradiction. It has nothing to do with special pleading; it has to do with the fact that there simply wouldn't be any rules to break.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Another argument that's been bouncing around in my brain.

I agree that special pleading is unproductive when trying to provide a proof for God. For example, theists often claim that since every effect must have a cause, God's existence is necessary in order for there to be a First Cause. This fails because it exempts God from the original assertion: that every effect must have a cause. Exhibit A, special pleading.

However, if we start out with the assumption that God exists, special pleading would not only be acceptable, it would be the only rational way to approach it.

If God exists, he would be exquisitely special. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be God. He is the exception to the rule, by the very nature of being God. I mean, what other entity could not only travel faster than light, but could change the speed of light while he was at it?

So, back to the original argument, if we are assuming that God exists, then maybe he really is a special case, unbound by identity, but having one nonetheless.

 

[Meow Mix]

well, apparently it isn't, or we'd be able to perfectly define God.

This doesn't follow. Identity can be perfectly defined even if people aren't able to perfectly define God. I'm not sure you're properly understanding what identity is if you make a statement like this... seems to me like you are equivocating the word with something like "social identity" or how humans "identify" something: these things are not logical identity.

"God is God" only because we identify God in that way. But in a universe where God is, our perceptions are immaterial when compared to God's Being.

Identity has nothing to do with our perceptions. Again you appear to be equivocating social "identities" with logical identity; two utterly different concepts. God is God regardless of what we perceive God as.

Identity works, but in a completely different paradigm. If God is God, then identity is dependent upon God. If God does not exist, then identity is dependent upon us.

I have shown how identity is efficacious in the hypothetical absence of a god. Please justify your bold assertion that "If God is God, then identity is dependent upon God." This is putting the cart before the horse: how could God be God in the first place for identity to depend on God without identity preceding that fact?

Identity isn't dependent on God or on us. Again, it strongly appears as though you're equivocating an incorrect context of the word "identity" with the identity I'm talking about (logical identity).

In that world, only human perception matters, and is the basis for reality. So, in this case, you are correct.

...but identity doesn't rely on perception. You're not understanding the concept.

You're assuming here that God can either exist or not exist, which still places our perception as the paramount measure of reality. But God does exist. God is existence. God isn't "nothing." God is. Therefore, our perceptions are measured against that reality. What we perceive as either "nothing" or "something" is based upon ... God.

Regardless of whether God exists, it's true that identity is external to God. It's also true that God is contingent on identity.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thank you for ontologically proving God.

This ontologically proves the efficacy of identity, not God.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yeah, but we often perceive incorrectly, then force the improper identity onto something and call it good. Sort of like what you're doing with identity. You're basing identity upon our perception -- what we perceive as "identity."

Identity isn't about perception, you are not understanding the concept...

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow, I don't know how else to explain. You are using logic to prove that logic is necessary. Don't you see how that can appear circular? You claim that "identity" is incorrigible but you can only prove that by appealing to the very laws you are claiming are incorrigible.

It is circular (but not viciously circular, meaning it isn't irrational) because it's tautologous. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. Furthermore it's impossible to doubt without self-refutation; its negation proves its truth -- so it's self-evident. I'm not assuming it per se, it's evidencing itself by proving itself impossible to be doubted.

If we imagine an existence "without logic"-- admittedly rather impossible since our brains are wired with logic-- then there would be no such thing as a contradiction. It has nothing to do with special pleading; it has to do with the fact that there simply wouldn't be any rules to break.

What you said in that first sentence was "T'was brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe," or you might as well have been talking about "the set of all sets which do not contain themselves as members."

The thing about illogical things is that they aren't things at all, they're not possibilities. You can string words together that individually mean something but as soon as you string together words like "logic not existing" then you haven't said anything other than "dkgjsdhkgsd." So no, you can't imagine "an existence without logic" at all. You can't even attempt to give such an argument as a hypothetical whatsoever because there is nothing to hypothesize other than "gibberish."

Also as I've demonstrated, even attempting to hypothesize the absence of logic only proves that logic still exists in the attempt. Trying to make the argument you just did is sort of like saying with words "I'm going to try to explain to you with words how words don't impart meaning." It's self-defeating, contradictory, and absurd.

I agree that special pleading is unproductive when trying to provide a proof for God. For example, theists often claim that since every effect must have a cause, God's existence is necessary in order for there to be a First Cause. This fails because it exempts God from the original assertion: that every effect must have a cause. Exhibit A, special pleading.

However, if we start out with the assumption that God exists, special pleading would not only be acceptable, it would be the only rational way to approach it.

Special pleading is never acceptable just like argumentum ad hominem is never acceptable. A fallacy can never, ever, under any circumstances be acceptable. Certainly never rational!

If God exists, he would be exquisitely special. If he wasn't, then he wouldn't be God. He is the exception to the rule, by the very nature of being God. I mean, what other entity could not only travel faster than light, but could change the speed of light while he was at it?

That isn't irrational or special pleading though via the attribute of omnipotence. Since physical laws are contingent, it's possible for them to be different; and if there is metaphysical justification for God's existence and the attribute of omnipotence it wouldn't be special pleading but rather a justified assertion.

So, back to the original argument, if we are assuming that God exists, then maybe he really is a special case, unbound by identity, but having one nonetheless.

Physical laws are contingent, logic is not. Not even an omnipotent being can be "unbound by identity" <-- self-contradictory term, therefore meaningless

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Meow mix, I think I can stump you.
God is god, yes. However, what god is is simply more than a precursor to a description.

For example, identity is nothing more than one and the same breath when we describe something. It is part of sentient thought process.

If there was non God, there would be no reality for identity to exist.
So God must come before identity, and thus God give identity it's utility.

Your argument is simply that identity exists with or without a god, and we can all see the rational behind that. However if there was no life, no existence anywhere, nothing. There is no such thing as identity. Which is where you have been projecting identity, by saying even if there was nothing , there is still identity because the word nothing can be identified.
Therefor, just because we can actively apply the word identity to a theoretical world of nothing, or rather a non existent world, only allows identity to exist in the false reality.
For truly if there never was anything, identity would also be included in not existing. Idenoty can not exist without god first creating a place for identity to exist.

 

[Meow Mix]

For truly if there never was anything, identity would also be included in not existing.

Here is where you contradict yourself.

So, are you saying that identity wouldn't exist if it didn't exist?

(So, are you saying that A would = A)

Indeed.

You're assuming its efficacy when trying to doubt it and self-contradicting, as I said any attempt would.

What keeps something from existing if "nothingness" is the case? If indeed there is nothingness then we must admit that there can't be even a little bit of something. That is identity in action. Keeping nothingness what it "is." Keeping somethingness from "being" since nothingness is what "is." That is identity. Nothingness = nothingness, nothingness can't be somethingness at the same time and in the same respect, and there must either be nothingness or somethingness. Yep, identity is still in full force.