Logic Proof for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-04-2015, 05:53 PM
Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 05:48 PM)kselfri Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 05:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If that's what you were trying to get at in your OP you failed miserably. But if that is what you meant then it makes for a far more provocative and interesting discussion. Thumbsup

That's some extra support for my premise #1. Some seem to think math/logic is just a mere invention of mankind, in which case they automatically reject premise #1. I think Max does a better job of explaining why math/logic (I consider math & logic one in the same) are not mere inventions. I didn't expect to spend half my time defending premise #1, thought it was obvious.

Math is an emergent property of conscious thought. Without a mind to observe it, it does not exist because math is an abstract concept. It isn't matter or energy.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
08-04-2015, 06:36 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 05:48 PM)kselfri Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 05:08 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If that's what you were trying to get at in your OP you failed miserably. But if that is what you meant then it makes for a far more provocative and interesting discussion. Thumbsup

That's some extra support for my premise #1. Some seem to think math/logic is just a mere invention of mankind, in which case they automatically reject premise #1. I think Max does a better job of explaining why math/logic (I consider math & logic one in the same) are not mere inventions. I didn't expect to spend half my time defending premise #1, thought it was obvious.

Everyone here seems to be rejecting Premise 1 as it is written.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 08:13 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 05:53 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 05:48 PM)kselfri Wrote:  That's some extra support for my premise #1. Some seem to think math/logic is just a mere invention of mankind, in which case they automatically reject premise #1. I think Max does a better job of explaining why math/logic (I consider math & logic one in the same) are not mere inventions. I didn't expect to spend half my time defending premise #1, thought it was obvious.

Math is an emergent property of conscious thought. Without a mind to observe it, it does not exist because math is an abstract concept. It isn't matter or energy.

What you're saying is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to observe it, it didn't happen. Really?

Then how do you explain that the planets travel in ellipses (a mathematical equation) or that light travels at a constant speed (a constant quantity), or all the other physical behaviors of the universe being in accordance with mathematical equations? How was it that Higgs was able to, using math & logic, predict the existence of a particle to be discovered decades later? Following your reasoning, if humans were to go extinct, the planets would suddenly change their orbits to random wiggles, the speed of light would fluctuate randomly, and the universe would descend into chaos.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 08:21 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 08:13 PM)kselfri Wrote:  What you're saying is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to observe it, it didn't happen. Really?

Then how do you explain that the planets travel in ellipses (a mathematical equation) or that light travels at a constant speed (a constant quantity), or all the other physical behaviors of the universe being in accordance with mathematical equations? How was it that Higgs was able to, using math & logic, predict the existence of a particle to be discovered decades later? Following your reasoning, if humans were to go extinct, the planets would suddenly change their orbits to random wiggles, the speed of light would fluctuate randomly, and the universe would descend into chaos.

Why is this so hard for you? The physical things that mathematics can quantify would still exist, but mathematics itself is a conceptual framework designed to describe those physical things in a consistent and understandable format for ease of communication. The planets don't travel in ellipses inherently, they travel in predictable patterns that we can express through a language called mathematics that we invented, using another term that we invented called an elipse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 08:31 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(06-04-2015 06:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(06-04-2015 04:29 PM)kselfri Wrote:  There's also an acceptable variant of #1, Logic applies everywhere in the universe, which may be more palpable.

Cosmologists have been measuring and gathering data spanning the universe, they all agree the galaxies and the universe behave in accordance with mathematics/logic. The fact they're able to make these measurements and observe light spanning billions of years is evidence it does exist everywhere. It has not been proven to the contrary. They've not found evidence of any region of space which math/logic are absent. I don't see how something supported by overwhelming evidence is an overstatement.

So you don't see the Big Bang as a creation event? I propose that math/logic existed before that event, otherwise that event could not have occurred.

You've got it bass ackwards. Galaxies, planets, raindrops, fire, and everything that exists behave according to their nature and according to the laws of nature. Logic and mathematics result from our conceptual grasp of these facts. Logic and mathematics simply have no meaning apart from the act of cognition. The order in the universe does not rest on logic and mathematics; logic and mathematics rest on the order of the universe. The order in the universe is primary to the laws of logic and mathematics. To say that logic causes the universe to behave orderly is to say that nature is inherently disorderly and that denies the axiom of existence/identity which commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

To say that logic and mathematics pre-existed the Human mind is exactly like saying that digestion pre-existed stomachs.

Logic would be completely useless to an omniscient and infallible mind. It is precisely because our minds are fallible and we are not omniscient that we need logic. Logic is a way of organizing and integrating our thoughts and making sure they correspond to reality. A perfect mind which created everything would not need such a process. It would have no need to organize and validate knowledge. If God created logic for us to use then why did he not mention it in his Bible and tell us how to use it. I've asked you to show us book, chapter and verse where the Bible discusses concepts and how they are formed. You ignored my request. Now I'm adding logic to that. Where does the Bible speak of logic?

The fact that the universe has behaved in accordance with mathematics for 13.8 billion years proves it did indeed exist prior to humans discovering it. Take some physics classes or read about physics - it's based on mathematics. Mathematics are the rules of nature. I hate to keep posting Max Tegmark, but he explains it better than I can - if you don't believe me when I say it, maybe you'll believe him (please read the link, it's just one page):
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...h-excerpt/

Asking why Logic isn't in the Bible (or any other theological text) is not relevant, but I'll propose an answer: The same reason Calculus isn't in there, nor particle physics, nor quantum mechanics. It's not a textbook.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 08:21 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 08:13 PM)kselfri Wrote:  What you're saying is that if a tree falls in the woods and no human is around to observe it, it didn't happen. Really?

Then how do you explain that the planets travel in ellipses (a mathematical equation) or that light travels at a constant speed (a constant quantity), or all the other physical behaviors of the universe being in accordance with mathematical equations? How was it that Higgs was able to, using math & logic, predict the existence of a particle to be discovered decades later? Following your reasoning, if humans were to go extinct, the planets would suddenly change their orbits to random wiggles, the speed of light would fluctuate randomly, and the universe would descend into chaos.

Why is this so hard for you? The physical things that mathematics can quantify would still exist, but mathematics itself is a conceptual framework designed to describe those physical things in a consistent and understandable format for ease of communication. The planets don't travel in ellipses inherently, they travel in predictable patterns that we can express through a language called mathematics that we invented, using another term that we invented called an elipse.

Maybe it's hard for me because I've studied it - I came to the conclusion only after taking a couple semesters of physics. You look around and see the objects, and lump them together, give them a name - such as a "water". That label is "ease of communication". The more we learn about it, we then realized it was composed of molecules, which are made atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. We then learn these particles are only fields of force acting about a point, nothing more. You get down to these smallest of particles and realize what's there - nothing but a conceptual entity (a Point, from geometry) and a field (a mathematical equation). Things of not of substance we as we had previously perceived before. That's why it's hard for me to see it a different way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 09:05 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 09:00 PM)kselfri Wrote:  Maybe it's hard for me because I've studied it - I came to the conclusion only after taking a couple semesters of physics. You look around and see the objects, and lump them together, give them a name - such as a "water". That label is "ease of communication". The more we learn about it, we then realized it was composed of molecules, which are made atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. We then learn these particles are only fields of force acting about a point, nothing more. You get down to these smallest of particles and realize what's there - nothing but a conceptual entity (a Point, from geometry) and a field (a mathematical equation). Things of not of substance we as we had previously perceived before. That's why it's hard for me to see it a different way.

So basically you're a first year physics student who's misunderstanding the implications of what he's learning and then conflating it with a bunch of bad apologetics. Gotcha. Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Esquilax's post
08-04-2015, 09:10 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 05:53 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 05:48 PM)kselfri Wrote:  That's some extra support for my premise #1. Some seem to think math/logic is just a mere invention of mankind, in which case they automatically reject premise #1. I think Max does a better job of explaining why math/logic (I consider math & logic one in the same) are not mere inventions. I didn't expect to spend half my time defending premise #1, thought it was obvious.

Math is an emergent property of conscious thought. Without a mind to observe it, it does not exist because math is an abstract concept. It isn't matter or energy.

...and the physics of the universe follow these abstract rules of math & logic. Therefore, it was created by a mind. The proof, again, in a round-about way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 09:16 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(08-04-2015 09:05 PM)Esquilax Wrote:  
(08-04-2015 09:00 PM)kselfri Wrote:  Maybe it's hard for me because I've studied it - I came to the conclusion only after taking a couple semesters of physics. You look around and see the objects, and lump them together, give them a name - such as a "water". That label is "ease of communication". The more we learn about it, we then realized it was composed of molecules, which are made atoms, which are made of subatomic particles. We then learn these particles are only fields of force acting about a point, nothing more. You get down to these smallest of particles and realize what's there - nothing but a conceptual entity (a Point, from geometry) and a field (a mathematical equation). Things of not of substance we as we had previously perceived before. That's why it's hard for me to see it a different way.

So basically you're a first year physics student who's misunderstanding the implications of what he's learning and then conflating it with a bunch of bad apologetics. Gotcha. Rolleyes


Nope, not a 1st year student, that was many years ago. If I'm misunderstanding the implication, I'm comforted to know I'm not alone:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...h-excerpt/

Gotcha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-04-2015, 09:28 PM
RE: Logic Proof for God
(07-04-2015 03:40 AM)Ace Wrote:  we create maths, logic, rules for the express and sole purpose of describing the universe as we now understand it
Einsteins used a non-euclidean form of mathematics for his theory of relativity because all euclidean mathematical tools were inadequate to study the curved plain we know call spacetime

when we say natural laws no one is saying there are actual laws or rules, what we're really saying is that if all criteria and conditions for a particular phenomena to occur are exactly replicated or repeated then that phenomena will happen again

we create these "logical rules and laws" to allows us to understand a phenomena and be able reproduce it under controlled conditions

------------------------------------------------------------------------
now to the meat of the matter

(06-04-2015 06:38 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  You've got it bass ackwards. Galaxies, planets, raindrops, fire, and everything that exists behave according to their nature and according to the laws of nature. Logic and mathematics result from our conceptual grasp of these facts. Logic and mathematics simply have no meaning apart from the act of cognition. The order in the universe does not rest on logic and mathematics; logic and mathematics rest on the order of the universe. The order in the universe is primary to the laws of logic and mathematics. To say that logic causes the universe to behave orderly is to say that nature is inherently disorderly and that denies the axiom of existence/identity which commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.

To say that logic and mathematics pre-existed the Human mind is exactly like saying that digestion pre-existed stomachs.

Logic would be completely useless to an omniscient and infallible mind. It is precisely because our minds are fallible and we are not omniscient that we need logic. Logic is a way of organizing and integrating our thoughts and making sure they correspond to reality. A perfect mind which created everything would not need such a process. It would have no need to organize and validate knowledge. If God created logic for us to use then why did he not mention it in his Bible and tell us how to use it. I've asked you to show us book, chapter and verse where the Bible discusses concepts and how they are formed. You ignored my request. Now I'm adding logic to that. Where does the Bible speak of logic?

define omniscient in a way that doesn't create any paradoxes

words like, omniscient, omnipotence are ill defined as they create paradoxes so define them without creating any paradoxes otherwise don't use such terms
perfect is not a possible thing, its an unattainable

also you are defeating yourself here
Quote: It is precisely because our minds are fallible and we are not omniscient that we need logic
well Mr.fallible kselfri's mind, why should we assume what you say is true ? that a fallible person like yourself knows something to be infallibly true like an infallible mind existing somewhere and creating universes ?

provide evidence and submit it for peer review if you want us to listen


Ace, It seems you may be confusing my comments & Scotmans? I never mentioned anything about omniscience, fallable or infallible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: