| harvey1 |
| Posted 06/02/09 at 09:21 AM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by mrdarkbloom
Is God the author of logical absolutes?
Is God bound by logical absolutes? I don't think you can separate logical absolutes and the interpretation of logic (i.e., metalogic). If logical absolutes exist, then so does metalogic. If metalogic exists, then so do logical absolutes. However, if interpretation is real (i.e., it exists), then so do the meaning and understanding of the interpretation. Meaning and understanding are properties of Mind. Thus, God is part of this metaphysical structure that sustains the universe. He is "beyond it" in that he gives the whole metaphysical structure the meaning it has, but he certainly cannot author logical absolutes anymore than logical absolutes can exist without some kind of inherent meaning. |
| Loading... | |
| mrdarkbloom |
| Posted 06/02/09 at 10:31 AM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
Quote: If metalogic exists, then so do logical absolutes. However, if interpretation is real (i.e., it exists), then so do the meaning and understanding of the interpretation. Meaning and understanding are properties of Mind.
The only evidence I've seen of these properties is as temporal effects in human finite minds.
Quote: God is part of this metaphysical structure that sustains the universe. He is "beyond it" in that he gives the whole metaphysical structure the meaning it has, but he certainly cannot author logical absolutes anymore than logical absolutes can exist without some kind of inherent meaning.
I'm not sure I follow when you say God is part of the metaphysical structure? I thought God was entirely responsible for all possible parts. Please explain why you are limiting God.
|
| Loading... | |
| harvey1 |
| Posted 06/02/09 at 06:00 PM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by mrdarkbloomQuote: Meaning and understanding are properties of Mind.
Quote: Originally Posted by DB
I'm not sure I follow when you say God is part of the metaphysical structure? I thought God was entirely responsible for all possible parts. Please explain why you are limiting God.
There's a holistic relation between logic and God. As I said, without meaning and interpretation you can't have logic.
|
| Loading... | |
| mrdarkbloom |
| Posted 06/03/09 at 03:30 AM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
Quote: Are you denying that meaning and understanding are properties of minds?
Of course not, I'm simply saying the only evidence we have of minds (and said properties) is in the natural world.
There is no good evidence to conclude that God is a mind.
If you make such a claim, it's up to you to provide solid evidence for it.
For me, the idea that God is an unembodied mind is a completely unjustified assertion.
Quote: There's a holistic relation between logic and God. As I said, without meaning and interpretation you can't have logic.
Humans are interpreters who try to find meaning - why does it necessarily follow that there is meaning or that we are even interpreting reality correctly?
Also I would make a distinction between logic and logical absolutes:
Logic is the human language of interpretation.
Logical absolutes are not contingent on human minds.
If God is the default state of all existence, you have to justify your claim that God is a) necessary, b) a mind.
You haven't even come close to showing this yet.
|
| Loading... | |
| harvey1 |
| Posted 06/03/09 at 07:26 PM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by mrdarkbloom
. . .I'm simply saying the only evidence we have of minds (and said properties) is in the natural world. There is no good evidence to conclude that God is a mind. If you make such a claim, it's up to you to provide solid evidence for it.
Quote: Originally Posted by DBQuote: There's a holistic relation between logic and God. As I said, without meaning and interpretation you can't have logic.
If we've ruled out a physical explanation for the universe (because of not being able to traverse an infinite), then a metaphysical explanation or metaphysical logic is needed to rationally account for the universe. However, if so, then meaning exists necessarily. For example, you can't argue that X=Y+1 is valid without requiring the symbols (X, =, Y+1) meaning something. Whether we are interpreting reality correctly or not, is not the issue. The issue is how do we stay within rational bounds when seeking an understanding on what could have in principle caused the universe. If there is only one rational answer to that question, then if you want to be rational then you ought to believe that one possibility. If you want to be irrational, then it really doesn't matter what you believe. Such an individual could join Heaven's Gate or any other crazy belief system and believe anything. Quote: Originally Posted by DB
Also I would make a distinction between logic and logical absolutes: Logic is the human language of interpretation. Logical absolutes are not contingent on human minds. If God is the default state of all existence, you have to justify your claim that God is a) necessary, b) a mind. You haven't even come close to showing this yet.
If there are logical absolutes, then certain truths are true as a result if these are indeed absolutes. Hence, whatever those logical truths are, they are not human derived. They exist whether humans exist or not. Assuming there is a metaphysical explanation that provides a cause to the universe, then the logic that exists has interpretation--again whether humans exist or not. This interpretation cannot be gibberish, rather it must have meaning: a property of an objective Mind that exists.
|
| Loading... | |
| AndrewGodHypothesis |
| Posted 02/09/11 at 04:55 PM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
Hello
I really liked Brady's breakdown showing how our existence (our minds, plus universe around us) must stem from a necessary, uncreated being (blog entry number 2). Brady, you are a very smart, straight thinking logical dude!
However a gigantic weakness in Brady's argument arises in the premise that the universe, (or more contempory these days- "universe/or quite possibly multiverse") is in itself not necessary and hence required an uncaused cause.
The scientific idea that the universe (eg. matter, energy, forces etc) began from nothing at the big bang is outdated and often poorly understood when translated in meaning from science to philosophy. Many now theorize for example that time extends before the big bang - in present multiverse theory (i.e. string theory etc.). Also, the singularity of the big bang while scientists generally relate to as nothing (infinately small) is not actually proported to be infinately small at all, but rather a finitely sized object with high density (eg. 1 X 10 - 34 the size of a proton). Hence the big bang in science, often mistaken by philosophers, is not a statement of a de-nova creative event from true nothing.
To strengthen Brady's argument that the universe/multiverse is not necessary - and therefore must have been caused by a necessary being, see argument below.
Proof God Exists
1) Time is from a philosophical perspective arguably absolute and infinite - there could not have been a "beginning" of time, as one could justifiably ask for any postulated beginning in time what happened a moment before? Hence it is reasonable to posit that absolute time comprises an actualized infinity a priori (an infinite number of absolute time units regressing into the past).
*note, physicists define time at zero or beginning at the big bang, but this is only "relativistic time" - depending on consecutive changes of state of matter.
2) Our universe/multiverse of energy, forces and matter is not infinitly old - as if it where our universe, should have already substantially reached a state of completion (i.e. a state of maximized entropy, deep freeze, no life - per current consensus scientific perspective), which is not the case.
3) There must therefore have been a delay from eternity past, to allow provision, or at least a first interaction, of said energy, matter and forces to allow for the beginning of our unvierse/ multiverse.
4) The delay mechanism must have had intelligence, as without intelligence there would have been no capacity to effect such a delay. Further, the delay is beyond human comprehension, as it must have traversed an infinite time a priori.
5) The delay mechanism can be postulated as an intelligent creator of our universe/multiverse with a characteristic which surpasses all human understanding = God.
In Christ
A.
|
| Loading... | |
