The Debate of God.

[Heathen Hammer]

Some days in the Circle, are good days

 

[meddlehaze]

1) Logical absolutes are discovered by logic
2) Logic is a process of the mind.
3) Logical absolutes cannot exist without a mind

Correct?

3) Logic cannot exist without a human mind.

1) What evidence do you have that logical absolutes are impossible without god?

This is philosophy, not science

I meant to say logic instead of logical absolutes**

 

[9Westy9]

3) Logic cannot exist without a human mind.

so what comes after 3 then

This is philosophy, not science

I meant to say logic instead of logical absolutes**

Still, what evidence is there? Or, what line of reasoning is there to support it?

 

[PolyHedral]

1) Without God, logical absolutes are not possible

What is "God?" Is it itself?

 

[meddlehaze]

so what comes after 3 then

Nothing, it wasn't an argument. I just was establishing facts.

Still, what evidence is there? Or, what line of reasoning is there to support it?

Without an objective, transcendent Mind, no human can justifiably claim that any logic is absolute.

What is "God?" Is it itself?

He is Himself. He has characteristics which I believe He has revealed. God is an metaphysical entity, who thinks and acts according to His own desires or decrees; He is the independent factor of everything which include logical absolutes.

 

[9Westy9]

Without an objective, transcendent Mind, no human can justifiably claim that any logic is absolute.

I fail to see why

 

[PolyHedral]

He is Himself. He has characteristics which I believe He has revealed.

Then logic already precedes Him.

 

[meddlehaze]

Then logic already precedes Him.

How so?

 

[PolyHedral]

How so?

Otherwise, "He is Himself" wouldn't mean anything. For God to have any attribute at all, including being Himself, logic must already exist, so that the attribute is meaningful.

 

[meddlehaze]

Otherwise, "He is Himself" wouldn't mean anything. For God to have any attribute at all, including being Himself, logic must already exist, so that the attribute is meaningful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to posit that God's attributes are established by logic rather than discovered. Is that correct?

 

[PolyHedral]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to posit that God's attributes are established by logic rather than discovered. Is that correct?

How can one discover something that is not already there? And yes.

 

[meddlehaze]

How can one discover something that is not already there? And yes.

That is very ambiguous, please be specific.

How can logic establish anything? In my perception, it is merely a tool to discover already established absolutes.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Okay. An example of a statement that applies to the universe but not to me.

"The universe is made up mostly of hydrogen. It is billions of light years across."

A statement that applies to me but not to the universe.

"I am a biological entity."

Good Thanks, You are a biological entity that is part of the Universe that is mostly made of Hydrogen and is billions of light years apart, so a statement of the Universe that also applies to you is plausible.

Or are you separate from the Universe? because you are a biological entity and the Universe is made of hydrogen and is billions of light years apart, making the Universe a separate entity to ur self.

if you are where do you exist?

If you are not separate what was wrong with godnotgod s statement.

The universe is not an object; it is inside you and outside you. It is your very next breath. It's not just alive, it's intelligent.

All he was trying to say is we are all part of this Universe, simple.

And that's what I am trying to point out.

 

[Tiberius]

Good Thanks, You are a biological entity that is part of the Universe that is mostly made of Hydrogen and is billions of light years apart, so a statement of the Universe that also applies to you is plausible.

Or are you separate from the Universe? because you are a biological entity and the Universe is made of hydrogen and is billions of light years apart, making the Universe a separate entity to ur self.

if you are where do you exist?

If you are not separate what was wrong with godnotgod s statement.

I am a part of the universe, yes. But that does not mean that what applies to the universe must also apply to me. And it does not mean that what applies to me must also apply to the universe.

All he was trying to say is we are all part of this Universe, simple.

And that's what I am trying to point out.

And you have missed the point I was making.

 

[apophenia]

How can one discover something that is not already there? And yes.

Perhaps not priorly there.
If it was emergent.

How would we prove that logic is or is not emergent ?

Either way, logic exists in an illogical universe. What could be more illogical than everything spontaneously appearing from nothing ?

LegionOnomaMoi pointed out to me that 'the singularity' doesn't refer to any kind of something. It refers to a "dimensionless point, essentially nothing" which didn't actually "exist"........

................... Bang !!! Everything !

Logical ? The term logical and the proposed magical appearance of everything from nothing don't seem to bear much relation ...

 

[PolyHedral]

That is very ambiguous, please be specific.

How can logic establish anything? In my perception, it is merely a tool to discover already established absolutes.

Logical premises establish logical truths, which are transcendent. Logical deduction is the process of discovering truths.

What could be more illogical than everything spontaneously appearing from nothing ?

Things appearing from nothing is allowed under several models of physics.

 

[apophenia]

Logical premises establish logical truths, which are transcendent. Logical deduction is the process of discovering truths.

JFTR ... please provide a definition of transcendent.

 

[apophenia]

Things appearing from nothing is allowed under several models of physics.

You claimed that the entire universe could be simulated on a computer (on the 'internet conscious ?' thread).

Explain to me how to model the nothingness and the nonexistent singularity, and the conditions required for the Big Bang.

Otherwise you are modelling up without down.

 

[PolyHedral]

JFTR ... please provide a definition of transcendent.

Deduction done properly produces infallible truth that cannot be altered by any new proposition. 2+2 always equals 4, and there will never be a rational squareroot of 2.

You claimed that the entire universe could be simulated on a computer (on the 'internet conscious ?' thread).

Explain to me how to model the nothingness and the nonexistent singularity, and the conditions required for the Big Bang.

Otherwise you are modelling up without down.

An empty universe (for whatever "empty" means) is just another state. The laws of physics let you handle it just like any other state of the universe.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Tiberius;2808168]I am a part of the universe, yes. But that does not mean that what applies to the universe must also apply to me. And it does not mean that what applies to me must also apply to the universe.

i know what you are saying, and it is valid in every way as its facts, the only thing is you are looking for differences and i am looking for similarities.

And you have missed the point I was making.

I didn't, I know what your point is, but you are missing my point, being a part of the universe what applies to it in the also applies to you, you see difference because you look at everything individually, I see similarities because I look at things as a whole.