• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proving logic can't explain existence

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It's logic based on what we can see of time from where we are. It does not bring in any hypotheses of things we know nothing about.

It cannot possibly be logic based, the only parameter is unknown


That sounds like the laws of physics weren't in existence as part of a possible way the universe could have come into existence from nothing. But I guess there are different hypotheses about how the universe could have come into existence.

It seems to be the case that the laws of physics did not exist at the time of the BB, those laws break down anyway.


Yes I do that sort of thing sometimes when I look at scienctific ideas. Maybe there are so many hypotheses about origins of the universe etc in part because some people cannot live with the data pointing to a creator.

I have seen no data that points to a creator and i have seen a lot of data. I have seen people say 'i dont know so god must have done it".
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
It cannot possibly be logic based, the only parameter is unknown

It is logical based on the old frame of reference. Has new data told us that time is definitely not linear?

I have seen no data that points to a creator and i have seen a lot of data. I have seen people say 'i dont know so god must have done it".

Time beginning and the laws of physics beginning and everything else beginning seems to point to at least the possibility of a creator, or to other hypotheses which do not need a creator, the naturalistic answers, whatever the best of those ends up being.
And I imagine that some people would take the best of those, or any of those as possibilities rather than the God hypothesis.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Consciousness is the basis of life and is also logical and digital and based on the wiring of the brain. Modern man uses analog language and thinks using this analog device. We are separated from our natures by analog language.
I don't get one (colored in magenta), please. Please elaborate. Right, please?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Consciousness is the basis of life and is also logical and digital and based on the wiring of the brain. Modern man uses analog language and thinks using this analog device. We are separated from our natures by analog language.
I don't get one (colored in magenta), please. Please elaborate. Right, please?

Regards
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Consciousness is the basis of life and is also logical and digital and based on the wiring of the brain. Modern man uses analog language and thinks using this analog device. We are separated from our natures by analog language.
I don't get one (colored in magenta), please. Please elaborate. Right, please?

Regards
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It is logical based on the old frame of reference. Has new data told us that time is definitely not linear?

Old frame of reference? i am intrigued, please tell

What has linearity got to do with anything? I have never heard of relativity being a cause of life


Time beginning and the laws of physics beginning and everything else beginning seems to point to at least the possibility of a creator, or to other hypotheses which do not need a creator, the naturalistic answers, whatever the best of those ends up being.
And I imagine that some people would take the best of those, or any of those as possibilities rather than the God hypothesis.

What possibpossibility? The possibility of "i don't know so my god must have done it" as far as i know, nor a single one of those hypothesis even suggest the possibility of god. They are all based on either mathematics and/or physics.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I don't get one (colored in magenta), please. Please elaborate.

You can't step in the same river twice because it is constantly changing. It ebbs and flows as its cities wax and wane and the tides upon it come and go. Fish become more plentiful and algae dies.

This is how we see reality and it's caused by the language we speak and in which we think. This language becomes "analog" as soon as you start defining things in words that are also defined such that every word has ranges of ranges of meaning. With nothing solid (no reality) on which to build we each must build models of what we believe is reality. We experience our perceptions, all input, in terms of these models. If something is important enough to capture our attention we process it through our visceral knowledge and beliefs. We see an analog world full of things like a fish species becoming more numerous and we might estimate these numbers anecdotally or mathematically or scientifically but the reality is no such thing as "fish" or "carp" exist. The reality is each of those thing we call "carp" is an individual who merely shares a lot of genetic material with other individuals we call "carp". This individual can normally reproduce with other adult individuals we call "carp". Just as each collision of every particle within the carp is "digital" so too is the carp itself. Whether increasing or decreasing numbers of "carp" are the norm they are still individuals and the population changes one at a time.

Water flowing in a river will get caught up in eddies and violent collisions but the whole river is still composed of individual molecules. It is impossible to predict which molecule will be consumed by a thirsty animal or which molecules will be drawn up by the moon passing over head but every particle has its own unique history and unique fate. There isn't so much a "river" at all but a line of lower land along which most molecules will take the shortest possible path to the sea. Each consideration is digital and most things we call "analog' are a product of language and the way we think.

But our language is in no way natural. We once had a universal digital language that was a creation of the digital brain where most neurons are either "on" or "off". Unfortunately we outgrew it and had to invent pidgin languages that were analog like ours and used the same vocabulary as ancient Language. Our new languages aren't tied to reality or the wiring of the brain. Indeed the brain is modified by each individual in order to learn modern languages. We can't directly see the operation of our own brain like ancient people and animals because our means to think just doesn't allow it. We have to see our nature through the kaleidoscope of our own beliefs. We "think" about how our brain works rather than observing it directly. We have abstractions and induction to understand reality. This is all necessarily analog because we think using analog concepts, words, and premises.
 
Last edited:

Brian2

Veteran Member
Old frame of reference? i am intrigued, please tell

A linear time frame of reference with time going into the past and future in a line.

What has linearity got to do with anything? I have never heard of relativity being a cause of life

I don't think I was saying that relativity caused life.

What possibpossibility? The possibility of "i don't know so my god must have done it" as far as i know, nor a single one of those hypothesis even suggest the possibility of god. They are all based on either mathematics and/or physics.

The possibility of a God doing it is present in any one of the hypotheses. That possibility is a subjective thing and not necessarily seen in the hypotheses, which do not even consider a possible God having done it. Scientific possibilities only look at the physical causes and effects. It's a case of "I don't know so one of these hypotheses or another unthought of hypothesis must have done it,,,,,,,,,,in a scientific cause/effect way".
This scientific approach always misses out the possibility that the cause was a God without any physical cause. In science God is not on the possibility list.
 

McBell

Unbound
... any of those as possibilities rather than the God hypothesis.
What is this "God hypothesis" you speak of?
I mean, the exact breakdown of it.
All I have ever heard has been "GodDidIt".
That is not a hypothesis.
It is nothing more than bold empty claim.

So please be so kind as to present the details of this "God hypothesis" of which you speak.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
What is this "God hypothesis" you speak of?
I mean, the exact breakdown of it.
All I have ever heard has been "GodDidIt".
That is not a hypothesis.
It is nothing more than bold empty claim.

So please be so kind as to present the details of this "God hypothesis" of which you speak.

I have heard the term and it is probably a way for intelligent design people to posit God as a serious scientific possibility when we look for answers to how things came to be as they are.
God did it is a bold and empty claim from a scientific pov of course. I think the idea is that science is at a point now when it is searching for naturalistic answers in areas where these seem almost impossible to achieve. What is life? Where did the universe come from? How did the genetic system get set up so that information could be stored and used? etc. Naturalistic answers will always be sought however and even assumed to be the only possibilities in science. In the end it is a philosophical/theological question. However philosophy seems to come into science when we get to these questions where answers cannot be found but a naturalistic solution is seen as the only possibility.
 

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Nothing isnt a thing, but emptienes and space must be there. You cant create energy, and there are only so many combinations of shapes and colors so if it has always been I will at the very least occur forever.
 

McBell

Unbound
I have heard the term and it is probably a way for intelligent design people to posit God as a serious scientific possibility when we look for answers to how things came to be as they are.
God did it is a bold and empty claim from a scientific pov of course. I think the idea is that science is at a point now when it is searching for naturalistic answers in areas where these seem almost impossible to achieve. What is life? Where did the universe come from? How did the genetic system get set up so that information could be stored and used? etc. Naturalistic answers will always be sought however and even assumed to be the only possibilities in science. In the end it is a philosophical/theological question. However philosophy seems to come into science when we get to these questions where answers cannot be found but a naturalistic solution is seen as the only possibility.
So it isn't an actual hypothesis?

Saying "GodDidIt" instead of "I Don't Know" is nothing more than wishful thinking.
To call it a hypothesis is just plain dishonest.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Saying "GodDidIt" instead of "I Don't Know" is nothing more than wishful thinking.

It is a belief just as saying that 'God did not do it' is a belief. It can be worked out using reason around what we seem to know in science.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Time is not linear

Maybe not, whatever non linear means in relation to time. Does that mean that the past and the present can be happening at the same time?
How do you know that and does it mean that an infinite number of events could happen in the past one after the other?

Is it, i see various possibilities but no god mentioned in any of them

How would a God be mentioned in any of them? The possibility of a God is there however and as I was saying to Mestemia, reason applied to what we have evidence for can show that a God is needed. OR of course that line can be ignored and belief in one of the many hypotheses that do not mention a God or another future hypothesis that is even better, can replace that.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Maybe not, whatever non linear means in relation to time. Does that mean that the past and the present can be happening at the same time?
How do you know that and does it mean that an infinite number of events could happen in the past one after the other?

As i said, time is not linear, it is effected by gravity





How would a God be mentioned in any of them?

If it was thought that a god was instrumental how would it not be mentioned?

The possibility of a God is there however

Is it?

reason applied to what we have evidence for can show that a God is needed

No you don't, you have faith and opinion.

OR of course that line can be ignored and belief in one of the many hypotheses that do not mention a God

Guesses are not considered, as i stated at the beginning, universe creation hypotheses arw based on maths or hard, observed, falsifiable evidence
 

McBell

Unbound
It is a belief just as saying that 'God did not do it' is a belief. It can be worked out using reason around what we seem to know in science.
Who is saying "god did not do it"?
I hear that there is no reason to insert a god.
I hear there is nothing other than wishful thinking to include god.
But who, other than laymen and theists looking to beat up strawmen is saying "god did not do it"?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Who is saying "god did not do it"?
I hear that there is no reason to insert a god.
I hear there is nothing other than wishful thinking to include god.
But who, other than laymen and theists looking to beat up strawmen is saying "god did not do it"?

Many people say God did not do it. Atheists mainly I guess.
But in science God is not even an option. That is why science with the hypothesis that an intelligence must have done it is called pseudoscience even if the reasoning in the hypotheses may be quite sound.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Infinite regress is a violation of logic. Cause and effect cannot have happened an infinite number of times to end up here.

No, it is a violation of reasoning for a justified reason. What the unknown is, includes that we don't whether logic applies or not. That is so, because it unknown.
 
Top