Did God make the rules?

[sojourner]

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.



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.



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).



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



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

God is God in the first place, because God is God. Since God is identity, then identity is not external to God and depends upon God. Identity is contingent upon God. I think it's you who is misunderstanding the concept.

 

[sojourner]

This ontologically proves the efficacy of identity, not God.

Except that God is Identity. Therefore, God is ontologically proven.

 

[sojourner]

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.

That's God, my dear.

 

[Meow Mix]

God is God in the first place, because God is God. Since God is identity, then identity is not external to God and depends upon God. Identity is contingent upon God. I think it's you who is misunderstanding the concept.

Except that God is Identity. Therefore, God is ontologically proven.

Alright, as the one making the positive claim the burden of evidence is on you to establish that God "is" identity.

Please give a thorough explanation of the metaphysics used to arrive to that conclusion. Also, how you defeated the argument that identity is still efficacious in the hypothetical absence of God. Explain that too please.

 

[sojourner]

Alright, as the one making the positive claim the burden of evidence is on you to establish that God "is" identity.

Please give a thorough explanation of the metaphysics used to arrive to that conclusion. Also, how you defeated the argument that identity is still efficacious in the hypothetical absence of God. Explain that too please.

If God is God, then God is Creator, Impetus, Provocation, I could go on, but you get the idea. Nothing identifies God, because nothing stands outside God to make an objective perception. God just is.

If you wanna call that "state of being" "identity," go right ahead. Ain't no skin off my nose. It's just as good, if not better than a lot of other particular understandings we have of God. Some folks call it "the Creative Principle." Some call it "Reality." Some call it "Allah." Some call it "Myself."

Whatever you want to call it, it's there. It exists. it not only has being, it is Being -- Existence.
It's absolute. God "made the rules," because those, too, are absolute.

I think you're trying to reduce God to some kind of idea, or human construction, that must stand up to some kind of empirical test. What I'm saying is that God is Reason, God is Motive, God is Understanding. All those absolute things that we break down to their lowest common denominator and pin our existence and our sentience upon, we understand as God.

At the same time, because those things are God, they are greater that we can apprehend. We have life, but we don't know how to create life. We have minds, but we don't really understand how that self-cognizance originates. God is More than just the sum of those things.

For me, it's really more about a "system of understanding" than a belief. I couch that understanding in Christian theology, because that's what resonates with me.

 

[Falvlun]

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.

It's apparently not impossible to be doubted since that is exactly what I'm doing.

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."

You don't understand: I don't care that it results in gibberish. It doesn't hurt my position at all. In fact, the very fact that it is irrational is entirely the point. It's about the absence of reason.

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."

By which you mean "they are not possibilities in the framework of logic".

And as mentioned before, gibberish is fine, expected even.

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.

And that's like saying Arabic doesn't exist because I can't speak 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!

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.

Ok. That is my mistake then; it wouldn't be called "special pleading". I merely meant that it would make sense that God would be an exception to generally accepted rules based purely on the fact that he is God.

In other words, if it is being assumed in the argument that God exists, then it would not be special pleading to claim that God is an exception.

 

[Meow Mix]

If God is God, then God is Creator, Impetus, Provocation, I could go on, but you get the idea. Nothing identifies God, because nothing stands outside God to make an objective perception. God just is.

If you wanna call that "state of being" "identity," go right ahead. Ain't no skin off my nose. It's just as good, if not better than a lot of other particular understandings we have of God. Some folks call it "the Creative Principle." Some call it "Reality." Some call it "Allah." Some call it "Myself."

Whatever you want to call it, it's there. It exists. it not only has being, it is Being -- Existence.
It's absolute. God "made the rules," because those, too, are absolute.

I think you're trying to reduce God to some kind of idea, or human construction, that must stand up to some kind of empirical test. What I'm saying is that God is Reason, God is Motive, God is Understanding. All those absolute things that we break down to their lowest common denominator and pin our existence and our sentience upon, we understand as God.

At the same time, because those things are God, they are greater that we can apprehend. We have life, but we don't know how to create life. We have minds, but we don't really understand how that self-cognizance originates. God is More than just the sum of those things.

For me, it's really more about a "system of understanding" than a belief. I couch that understanding in Christian theology, because that's what resonates with me.

None of this really demonstrates how God "is" any of the things you said God "is."

All things mentioned have certain attributes that are demonstrable, but you tack on a new attribute to them -- but you haven't justified why you tack it on, you just keep asserting it.

You haven't really answered why identity works fine in the absence of gods, either. I think we're sort of talking past each other to an extent and need to find some middle ground and methodically start from our foundations to see where the first disagreement is coming from.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's apparently not impossible to be doubted since that is exactly what I'm doing.

Sorry -- I should clarify that it's impossible to rationally doubt. The moment you do so you're engaging in irrational argument. Might as well flap your arms, spin in a circle and make fart sounds with your mouth -- it would mean about as much. (Not meant to be rude, just funny )

You don't understand: I don't care that it results in gibberish. It doesn't hurt my position at all. In fact, the very fact that it is irrational is entirely the point. It's about the absence of reason.

Then you can't bring it to the table in a rational discussion. We might as well honk each others' noses and urinate ourselves if we're going to talk irrationally -- it would accomplish as much.

In other words, if it is being assumed in the argument that God exists, then it would not be special pleading to claim that God is an exception.

To contingent facts, but not to ontologically necessary truths (like identity). Even an omnipotent being obeys identity.

 

[Wessexman]

The problem, as others have pointed out, is your artificially separating what you call identity from the rest of the attributes of the One(I'm talking here hypothetically and not out to prove it exists.) or the divine essence. The law of identity is only a neat, separable law from a human perspective, in essentials it just means Reality is Reality, the divine essence is the divine essence and cannot not be. This doesn't mean that the law is "outside", if one may use such a paradoxical phrase, the distinctionless essence. It means that necessity is an attribute of the One, but not that it is a complete definition of the One. In this conception from an absolute perspective it is in the One but as an attribute or quality is not distinguishable from its Supreme Quality. But here your running up against the limits human language, mental conceptions and discursive thought which cannot of course picture or fully define the relationships of the different attributes and hypostases in the One.

Again your argument is based on using causal-based thought or what is called ratiocination/reason(deducing causes from effects), beyond its limitations. This is not unusual today, it is at the heart of the modern mindset, the replacement of gnosis or Intellect, in the Platonic sense, by reason. Reason in this sense is always relative(if one is talking of "pure reason", which is not seen in man because it would utterly divorce his awareness from awareness itself.), it deduces one thing from another and is not direct knowledge of a thing in itself, when it gets to the absolute it obviously can give us only a limited knowledge. This does not mean the absolute is irrational, one's rational deductions can be relatively correct, they are based on aspects of reality, but it does mean it is supra-rational, it is beyond the scope of discursive thought.

 

[PolyHedral]

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."

But identity is a statement, in that it is axiom you have to assume if you want to do anything coherent in formal logic. A inconsistent universe could exist (or not) just fine without a concept of identity.

 

[Man of Faith]

This is an interesting and thought provoking question. What I accept is God is the only God that we have to account to. And that he made the universe and world and all the plants, animals, humans in 6 normals days. However, are there other gods out there making other universes with other creatures that have to account to them? I don't know. The beauty and simplicity of my situtation is I only have to please the only God there is in my universe.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem, as others have pointed out, is your artificially separating what you call identity from the rest of the attributes of the One(I'm talking here hypothetically and not out to prove it exists.) or the divine essence. The law of identity is only a neat, separable law from a human perspective, in essentials it just means Reality is Reality, the divine essence is the divine essence and cannot not be. This doesn't mean that the law is "outside", if one may use such a paradoxical phrase, the distinctionless essence. It means that necessity is an attribute of the One, but not that it is a complete definition of the One. In this conception from an absolute perspective it is in the One but as an attribute or quality is not distinguishable from its Supreme Quality. But here your running up against the limits human language, mental conceptions and discursive thought which cannot of course picture or fully define the relationships of the different attributes and hypostases in the One.

Then why is identity efficacious in the hypothetical nonexistence of God?

If identity is part of God, why does it work without God?

This is like saying... hmm, must think of an analogy.

It's like saying length is a part of rulers, and then asserting that someone is being "too abstract" when they point out that length exists without rulers.

If God didn't exist at all, then things would still be what they were: even if there is nothing left, there wouldn't be something.

Why wouldn't there be something? Because there would be nothing.

But could there be something? No, not if there's nothing. Why? Because identity still exists even then, keeping nothing as what it is; keeping nothing from being something!

 

[Meow Mix]

But identity is a statement, in that it is axiom you have to assume if you want to do anything coherent in formal logic. A inconsistent universe could exist (or not) just fine without a concept of identity.

It isn't just assumed, it's self-evident and incorrigible.

The sentence "An inconsistent universe could exist (or not) just fine without a concept of identity" is self-contradictory.

What could exist or not?

An inconsistent universe.

Would it be an inconsistent universe if it's an inconsistent universe?

What keeps it from being a consistent universe if it's an inconsistent universe?

Identity. So the premise of rejecting identity must assume its efficacy, and self-defeats: as I've noted that all such attempts will, necessarily.

Humans are not capable of even toying with the notion of "identity not existing," because that's not even a notion any more than "asdghsdlkjtg" is a notion. The words individually mean something, but when you string them together then you might as well be saying, "A dgklasdhlkjgjkld could exist." That's utterly meaningless, and that's the point I've been trying to make.

 

[PolyHedral]

What keeps it from being a consistent universe if it's an inconsistent universe?

Nothing. It is inconsistent, remember.

 

[Meow Mix]

Nothing. It is inconsistent, remember.

If you take your premise to its logical conclusion then if you have an inconsistent universe then it would be a consistent universe where identity reigns.

You'll still end up assuming identity is true when trying to reject it.

 

[PolyHedral]

But, by rejecting identity, I also reject the law of exluded middle, which means that the inconsistent universe can be both inconsistent and consistent simultaneously. Which actually means you can prove anything, including the (nonsensical) negation of identity.

 

[Meow Mix]

But, by rejecting identity, I also reject the law of exluded middle, which means that the inconsistent universe can be both inconsistent and consistent simultaneously. Which actually means you can prove anything, including the (nonsensical) negation of identity.

But if the consistency is there you couldn't continue to reject the law of excluded middle. As soon as consistency is the case, the inconsistency is no longer the case. In fact it could have never begun to be the case.

 

[PolyHedral]

But I can reject the excluded middle, because I am not being consistent.

 

[Meow Mix]

But I can reject the excluded middle, because I am not being consistent.

No you can't. I'll pretend these words are meaningful for a second for fun:

- Inconsistent universe.
- Therefore consistent universe.
- Therefore, ¬inconsistent universe.
- Therefore, identity/excluded middle/noncontradiction

 

[PolyHedral]

What do you mean? You've started from the premise that the universe isn't consistent, and arrived at the conclusion that it is consistent. Unless you ignore the excluded middle, that's a contradiction and means the premise is wrong. Thus an inconsistent universe can only exist if the excluded middle doesn't apply. Because the excluded middle doesn't apply, both identity and it's negation can be true.