Did God make the rules?

[Meow Mix]

But because we are also ignoring the excluded middle, this is not a problem. Actually, this becomes somewhat (!) clearer in formal logic.

Our premise is that the universe is not consistent: (Pv~P) { In English: There's some statement P such that both P and its negation, ~P, are true.}
From the logic on this page, we can arrive at arbitrary statement: Q
However, if we make statement Q more specific, we can say Q=~(P=P), thus "proving" the law of identity false.
We could also substitute Q=~(Pv~P)
Aha, you say, contradiction! And you'd be right ...except our premise is (Pv~P). Substituting, we get:
((Pv~P)v~(Pv~P))
Thus, we have proven that in an inconsistent universe, the excluded middle does and does not apply.

However, those of us who are not logicians will be glad to know that the concept of truth handed in its resignation some time ago. An inconsistent universe is in no way coherent, but could theoretically exist.

I understand that, but if the excluded middle does and does not apply, then it applies and doesn't not-apply. Then the initial "does and does not apply" is no longer the case instantly, and we have only applies.

(P & ¬P) & ¬(P & ¬P) --> ¬(P & ¬P) & ¬[(P & ¬P)]

Notice that ¬(P & ¬P) and ¬[(P & ¬P)] are equivalent.

So (P & ¬P) & ¬(P & ¬P) --> ¬(P & ¬P)

This is because ∀x([¬(P & ¬P)] ∈ x) ¬[(P & ¬P)]

For all worlds with ¬(P & ¬P), ¬[(P & ¬P)]


For all worlds with excluded middle, not-not-excluded middle. Since this supposed world has not-excluded middle and excluded middle, then not-not-excluded middle (because excluded middle). Therefore, excluded middle.

 

[PolyHedral]

However, it must still apply, since it is our premise.

My original point in all of this is that identity is not an actual thing, and just an assumption that we make. We have to make it in order for anything to make sense, but we do make it.

 

[Meow Mix]

However, it must still apply, since it is our premise.

My original point in all of this is that identity is not an actual thing, and just an assumption that we make. We have to make it in order for anything to make sense, but we do make it.

But the point is that it can't be our premise in the first place because it wouldn't still apply and so refute itself. Assuming its nonexistence proves its existence and turns the premise into mush... whether or not we assume it, it still exists. Whether or not we assume its nonexistence, it still ends up existing.

It is an actual thing as we must agree it exists without us. You can't consistently state that it's only an assumption of ours becasue that's implying it wouldn't exist if we didn't, which self-contradicts. You can't even make that statement.

You must agree that it exists independently of us, or suffer irrational self-contradiction.

 

[PolyHedral]

But it doesn't; It is a consequence of silently assuming that the universe is self-consistent. After all, if we don't make that assumption, no statement is meaningful, including identity, because a statement does not exclude its negation. (and everything quickly falls into nonsense, as we have demonstrated.)

And the only thing that exists without a mind to comprehend it is, if I understand my physics correctly, whatever structure underlies the theory of everything. Everything else is a group or a pattern.

 

[Meow Mix]

But it doesn't; It is a consequence of silently assuming that the universe is self-consistent. After all, if we don't make that assumption, no statement is meaningful, including identity, because a statement does not exclude its negation. (and everything quickly falls into nonsense, as we have demonstrated.)

And the only thing that exists without a mind to comprehend it is, if I understand my physics correctly, whatever structure underlies the theory of everything. Everything else is a group or a pattern.

And you don't suppose that thing is what it is?

Identity doesn't exist because we're forced to admit it does (and we are forced to do so). It doesn't exist because of us at all; we just observe it. We don't create it, we discover it. It's "out there," it's external to us.

Denying this self-contradicts. So how can we still be discussing it? We must agree that it's true, shouldn't that be the end of it? :flirt:

 

[thedope]

And the only thing that exists without a mind to comprehend it is, if I understand my physics correctly, whatever structure underlies the theory of everything. Everything else is a group or a pattern.

In relation to the absolute, everything else is abstraction.

 

[PolyHedral]

(EDIT: Responding to Meow Mix)

No, because there is no me around to make the generalization. The very concept of "things" requires a mind to separate the thing from non-thing. Without such a mind, there are only... Actually, working out what's left when you take out all of the holistic structures requires a far more thorough understand of the universe than anyone, AFAIK, possesses. (EDIT: I'm wrong apparently. thedope has something.) However, if you imagine that the universe is being simulated by a computer, then the only thing left will be the information in the computer's memory, and it does not comprehend anything.

And of course not, this is a religious debates forum! Sticking to invalid and disproven premises is the point! </sarcasm>

In relation to the absolute, everything else is abstraction.

I am intrigued and wish to hear more. Specifically, what is the absolute?

 

[thedope]

I am intrigued and wish to hear more. Specifically, what is the absolute?

Without variables.

 

[Meow Mix]

(EDIT: Responding to Meow Mix)

No, because there is no me around to make the generalization. The very concept of "things" requires a mind to separate the thing from non-thing. Without such a mind, there are only... Actually, working out what's left when you take out all of the holistic structures requires a far more thorough understand of the universe than anyone, AFAIK, possesses. (EDIT: I'm wrong apparently. thedope has something.) However, if you imagine that the universe is being simulated by a computer, then the only thing left will be the information in the computer's memory, and it does not comprehend anything.

But identity doesn't stand or fall on being comprehended. This may be a small bit of equivocation with the everyday context of identity which means something like how we comprehend something. That's a different context than logical identity.

If the universe is being simulated by a computer, then the information in the computer's memory will be what it is -- even if we aren't around to notice that, to symbolize that as "A = A," or to make a fancy sounding law to describe it. It would still be the case, though.

We don't create identity, we just describe it.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Yes it is possible for god and identity to have existed simultaneously for eternity; though God would still be contingent on it. As I've been discussing with one of the other responders, necessity/contingency isn't equivalent to cause/effect.

How can God be contingent if God never had a beginning. It seems identity is simply an aspect of life that comes with an infinite being.

It seems you are forcing identity into a box it can not go...

 

[PolyHedral]

God has contingencies because various concepts are prerequisites for God existing. Among these are identity and the excluded middle.

We don't create identity, we just describe it.

Would this mean that identity is a physical thing? Because otherwise it can't exist, since it doesn't make sense for an abstract thing to exist without a mind to consider it.

Because meaning is probably going to fall apart again, I'll give an example of what I mean. Imagine we have a universe that has 5 counters, but no mind to consider what a counter is. It's true that there are still 5 counters, but the concept of "5" does not exist, because it requires thinking of the counters together as a group, and no such group physically exists. Similarly, although it is true that everything is what it is, generalizing that to all things requires cognition.

 

[Meow Mix]

How can God be contingent if God never had a beginning. It seems identity is simply an aspect of life that comes with an infinite being.

It seems you are forcing identity into a box it can not go...

Contingency doesn't imply being an effect of a cause. Something without a beginning can be contingent on some other thing that never had a beginning.

To be contingent on something doesn't mean that the other thing existed "before" the contingent thing.

The best way you can describe it is like this: take away God and identity still works fine. Take away identity and God does NOT "work fine."

Or think of it like the world on a tortoise's back. Both the world and tortoise could have always existed, but taking away the world doesn't hurt the tortoise. Taking away the tortoise though certainly messes up the world! In this case, even though both hypothetically always existed, the world is contingent on the tortoise but the tortoise is not contingent on the world.

 

[Meow Mix]

Would this mean that identity is a physical thing? Because otherwise it can't exist, since it doesn't make sense for an abstract thing to exist without a mind to consider it.

Is ontological physicalism true? What is "physical," really? The nonexistence of all physical objects still exhibits identity, and would still do so in the absence of any minds to observe or declare so.

If no physical objects existed and no minds existed, then that would be the case. Identity is still efficacious there; it's what keeps "no physical objects" from being "some physical objects." Clearly it exists without being physical and without requiring a mind to observe that.

I don't subscribe to the belief that the only things possible to exist outside of minds are physical objects. Mathematical and logical objects seem to exist fine in the absence of physical objects and minds.

Because meaning is probably going to fall apart again, I'll give an example of what I mean. Imagine we have a universe that has 5 counters, but no mind to consider what a counter is. It's true that there are still 5 counters, but the concept of "5" does not exist, because it requires thinking of the counters together as a group, and no such group physically exists. Similarly, although it is true that everything is what it is, generalizing that to all things requires cognition.

Generalizing it to all things is the Law of Identity, that's how we conceive of identity. Identity, the thing itself we're describing with the law, still exists as you've noted ("...it is true that everything is what it is...")

As for no one being around to group things into "five," that doesn't matter: reality in this scenario is still described by five points, even if we're not there to describe it as "five" or to abstractly group objects together. Indeed this mental act of "grouping" wouldn't exist, but the things themselves would exist and there would be five of them still (in the sense that there wouldn't be six and there wouldn't be four). A mind grouping them doesn't matter too much.

 

[Wessexman]

788888888888888884 (My cat said hello there)

No, you haven't shown that's the case. You've shown two distinct things existing; one being contingent on the other. Go back to there being "two beings with existence:" God and identity. Let's examine their relationships:

God exemplifies identity demonstrably.

Identity does not exemplify "God" demonstrably, or otherwise display any a priori relation at all to God other than God being bound to it.

One is contingent on the other, exactly as I have been saying: God is contingent on identity, even if God is ontologically necessary Himself. God still can't create identity and still can't control identity; God is subject to identity. You haven't made your case yet.

What is identity? You keep talking about it as if it is simply some discrete thing, as if it is just like a law written on paper. But in order for there to be identity there must existence, identity must exist in some sense, again we're stretching reason here. So while identity impacts existence it is still existent itself. If it were not existent or a part of existence it couldn't keep existent "itself". Theistic metaphysics takes this existence, this reality, to be God.

As of this point, you still haven't justified these assertions about identity's relationship with God somehow being more special than identity's relationship with contingent beings. God clearly exemplifies identity (is subject to it) but nothing has been demonstrated to make identity dependent on God in any sense; even if God is necessarily existent (which I doubt).

Why the hesitance to justify? I don't understand. I don't object to arguments and then refuse to justify my objections; that seems so counterproductive to me.

I objected to you saying that identity must be outside God and have indeed debunked that argument.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is identity? You keep talking about it as if it is simply some discrete thing, as if it is just like a law written on paper. But in order for there to be identity there must existence, identity must exist in some sense, again we're stretching reason here. So while identity impacts existence it is still existent itself. Theistic metaphysics takes this existence, this reality, to be God.

I objected to you saying that identity must be outside God and have indeed debunked that argument.

No, you're just declaring that identity is God... you're trying to define it as being true. But the fact of the matter is that nothing about the characteristics of identity itself indicate God is involved at all. You onus of proof is still in your court, you can't just define things into existence or define things to have attributes you say they have without support.

Atheists shouldn't be able to conceive of identity if it were inherently related to God. Why am I able to accurately describe and understand identity without attaching any God-aspect to it? Where are you getting this God-aspect from that you're adding to it, what's the justification?

 

[Wessexman]

No, you're just declaring that identity is God... you're trying to define it as being true. But the fact of the matter is that nothing about the characteristics of identity itself indicate God is involved at all. You onus of proof is still in your court, you can't just define things into existence or define things to have attributes you say they have without support.

Your just trying to get me to argue for God's existence. You haven't denied that identity has existence, that is shares in something beyond being a law on paper. As I keep saying over and over I have no wish to argue for the existence of God in this thread, it is not required, in no sense has you refuted theism except that which separates God from his creation.

Atheists shouldn't be able to conceive of identity if it were inherently related to God. Why am I able to accurately describe and understand identity without attaching any God-aspect to it? Where are you getting this God-aspect from that you're adding to it, what's the justification?

I don't think you are able to accurately describe and understand it. You can understand some things about it, but again you're abusing reason, language and mental conceptions. The law of identity is not what is written on paper, it is not a discrete law. It exact meaning, origin, form you cannot describe or understand. If your argument was correct we would never be able to describe any aspects of God or indeed Reality.

 

[Meow Mix]

Your just trying to get me to argue for God's existence. You haven't denied that identity has existence, that is shares in something beyond being a law on paper. As I keep saying over and over I have no wish to argue for the existence of God in this thread, it is not required, in no sense has you refuted theism except that which separates God from his creation.

I agree that identity has existence. I think it's nonsensical, perhaps even noncognitive to call that "God" though. Might as well define "God" as a pair of socks; it's meaningless to call that thing God. That's why I'm requesting justification for doing it -- otherwise it's just using semantics to define God into identity.

P1) My socks exist.
P2) God is my socks.
Therefore, God exists.

This is meaningless.

P1) Identity exists.
P2) God is identity.
Therefore, God exists.

Still meaningless.

I don't think you are able to accurately describe and understand it. You can understand some things about it, but again you're abusing reason, language and mental conceptions. The law of identity is not what is written on paper, it is not a discrete law. It exact meaning, origin, form you cannot describe or understand. If your argument was correct we would never be able to describe any aspects of God or indeed Reality.

I agree that it's not what's written on paper, I think you've misunderstood me the whole time if you thought that's what I was attempting to argue.

I don't think I'm the one abusing reason. I'm going with what I can know, with what's demonstrable, with what's justifiable. I haven't shied away from justifying a single thing that I've been saying.

On the other hand you try to insert a definition that isn't readily apparent and requires justification, then refuse to justify it. I don't find that very fair.

 

[Wessexman]

I agree that identity has existence. I think it's nonsensical, perhaps even noncognitive to call that "God" though. Might as well define "God" as a pair of socks; it's meaningless to call that thing God. That's why I'm requesting justification for doing it -- otherwise it's just using semantics to define God into identity.

P1) My socks exist.
P2) God is my socks.
Therefore, God exists.

This is meaningless.

P1) Identity exists.
P2) God is identity.
Therefore, God exists.

Still meaningless.

But that was never part of our argument. It is not illogical to consider identity as part of God though.

I agree that it's not what's written on paper, I think you've misunderstood me the whole time if you thought that's what I was attempting to argue.

I don't think I'm the one abusing reason. I'm going with what I can know, with what's demonstrable, with what's justifiable. I haven't shied away from justifying a single thing that I've been saying.

I think you are abusing reason. You have an idea of identity as something discrete, as simply the law we see on paper. But it exists and yet partly defines existence, your already then far beyond this discrete idea you have of it, your at the limits of reason and beyond.

On the other hand you try to insert a definition that isn't readily apparent and requires justification, then refuse to justify it. I don't find that very fair.

When did I try to insert that justification? When did I say identity must be God rather than it could be(if one takes into account the actual context of whether I was talking in terms of Theistic metaphysics or not.)?

 

[Meow Mix]

But that was never part of our argument. It is not illogical to consider identity as part of God though.

Not demonstrated illogical (yet), but irrational without justification.

When did I try to insert that justification? When did I say identity must be God rather than it could be(if one takes into account the actual context of whether I was talking in terms of Theistic metaphysics or not.)?

"Could be" isn't much of a statement though. Believing something because it "could be," or rather simply because it isn't demonstrated illogical at the time but without justification, is still irrational. It still requires justification to be believed and to be asserted.

If you're just asserting that it "could be," then I agree at this point since I lack a cognitive concept of God at this time to determine that it couldn't be. But it also "could be" the case that identity is a part of anti-God, or that identity is part of the universe, or... whatever.

Why point out that it "could be" at all? What's different between that and just listing off random "could bes" without justification?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Contingency doesn't imply being an effect of a cause. Something without a beginning can be contingent on some other thing that never had a beginning.

To be contingent on something doesn't mean that the other thing existed "before" the contingent thing.

The best way you can describe it is like this: take away God and identity still works fine. Take away identity and God does NOT "work fine."

Or think of it like the world on a tortoise's back. Both the world and tortoise could have always existed, but taking away the world doesn't hurt the tortoise. Taking away the tortoise though certainly messes up the world! In this case, even though both hypothetically always existed, the world is contingent on the tortoise but the tortoise is not contingent on the world.

Ok so someone probably already said this, but can't identity just be God. So that in reality neither could exist without the other?