What is the need for God?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

What is the need for God?

Post by bahman »

Things are either logically possible or impossible. God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible. Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible. The universe, however, cannot be eternal so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Impenitent »

a power source for priests ...

-Imp
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

"God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible."

There is a fallacy of equivocation in the above premise.

"God [non-empirical] could not create the universe [empirical] if it was logically impossible."

Thus you have to prove that God is existing empirically to ensure they are in the same sense, i.e. both are empirical.
Before that you should prove God is even empirically possible.

Another issue is whether you mean 'universe' or The Universe [in caps].
Often God is ultimately associated with the creation of The-Whole-Universe which is not empirically possible.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Skepdick »

bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible.
False dichotomy. There is no such thing as 'logical impossibility'.

If something is logically impossible, you can always construct a new logic in which the 'impossible' becomes possible. If you clam that 0=1 is impossible, you can simply axiomatise it as being true and it becomes possible.

If you prescribe logical rule X that 'cannot be violated', you can also prescribe a higher authority - logical rule Y, which allows for exceptions to rule X. Ad infinitum.

Logic is invented by us - humans. Logic is fallible like us - humans. It is the very idea of infallibility that manifests as God.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Dontaskme »

bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible.
Possible is only possible in relation to not-possible.
Reality is pure potential actualised.

bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pmGod could not create the universe if it was logically impossible.
Creation is only known in relation to un-creation.
Reality is Acausal. In not-knowing I know. I know in relation to not-knowing.
Something knows. That something knowing is also nothing knowing.

bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible.
Something cannot be known without relating something with it's opposite in the same instant. Something and Nothing are the same standing state. Which is Acausal. Which is a positionless position. A groundless ground. Etc..Etc..Etc..are just a few of the many discriptives of the same empty void full of itself.

bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pmThe universe, however, cannot be eternal
Eternity can only mean a discriptive of NOW. And now is all that is ever known.
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.
That's because something and nothing are the same reality, known now.

Reality or God is a need that doesn't need.

Every discriptive need is a need that doesn't need to be.

.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by bahman »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:14 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible.
False dichotomy. There is no such thing as 'logical impossibility'.

If something is logically impossible, you can always construct a new logic in which the 'impossible' becomes possible. If you clam that 0=1 is impossible, you can simply axiomatise it as being true and it becomes possible.

If you prescribe logical rule X that 'cannot be violated', you can also prescribe a higher authority - logical rule Y, which allows for exceptions to rule X. Ad infinitum.

Logic is invented by us - humans. Logic is fallible like us - humans. It is the very idea of infallibility that manifests as God.
By logically impossible I mean an objective idea that cannot be objectively real, like squire circle.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:11 am "God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible."

There is a fallacy of equivocation in the above premise.

"God [non-empirical] could not create the universe [empirical] if it was logically impossible."
I shouldn't use the universe in here. I should have said "God could not create someting that is logically imposible". Both God and something which are logically impossible to me just simple objective ideas. Thanks for the correction.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:11 am Thus you have to prove that God is existing empirically to ensure they are in the same sense, i.e. both are empirical.
Before that you should prove God is even empirically possible.
I think the problem is resolved considering the previous comment.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:11 am Another issue is whether you mean 'universe' or The Universe [in caps].
Often God is ultimately associated with the creation of The-Whole-Universe which is not empirically possible.
I mean a universe that is possible. I don't think that our universe is the only one. Our universe exists as an objective idea too. It is objectively real.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by bahman »

Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Things are either logically possible or impossible.
Possible is only possible in relation to not-possible.
Reality is pure potential actualised.
True. I don't understand what these have anything to do with what I stated.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm God could not create the universe if it was logically impossible.
Creation is only known in relation to un-creation.
Reality is Acausal. In not-knowing I know. I know in relation to not-knowing.
Something knows. That something knowing is also nothing knowing.
True. And the same.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm Something which is logically possible could exist without a need for a creator because it is possible.
Something cannot be known without relating something with it's opposite in the same instant.
I know good and evil in the same instance.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am Something and Nothing are the same standing state. Which is Acausal. Which is a positionless position. A groundless ground. Etc..Etc..Etc..are just a few of the many discriptives of the same empty void full of itself.
I cannot follow you here.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm The universe, however, cannot be eternal
Eternity can only mean a discriptive of NOW. And now is all that is ever known.
No. Eternity means a duration that has no beginning or end. Now is just an instant.
Dontaskme wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:36 am
bahman wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:25 pm so nothing is necessary state of affair. The process of nothing to something, therefore, is possible since something is possible.
That's because something and nothing are the same reality, known now.

Reality or God is a need that doesn't need.

Every discriptive need is a need that doesn't need to be.

.
I don't agree.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Skepdick wrote:
If something is logically impossible you can always construct a new logic in which the impossible becomes possible
If you clam that 0 = I is impossible you can simply axiomatise it as being true and it becomes possible

If you prescribe logical rule X that cannot be violated you can also prescribe a higher authority - logical rule Y which
allows for exceptions to rule X

Logic is invented by us - humans - Logic is fallible like us - humans
What would be the consequences for logic and mathematics and syllogisms if logic could be replaced entirely at will

The Law Of Non Contradiction would no longer be sound
Certain mathematical equations would no longer be true
Sound arguments would become invalid by having invalid premises

For all these reasons logic cannot be purely arbitrary but must have clearly defined prescriptive rules
Mathematics is a sub set of logic and a deductive discipline so arbitrary logic would be entirely useless

All probabilities exist between 0 and I but if 0 = I then that spectrum would no longer exist any more
All the rational and irrational numbers between 0 and I would go too
Also any equation where the answer was somewhere between 0 and I

Logic may only be true within the axioms that it operates from but that is not a sound reason to tinker with those axioms
Instead new logic should be added to the body of already existing logic such as for example the invention of the complex
number line that exists perpendicular to the standard number line where neither contradicts or invalidates the other one
A more historical example would be the invention of 0 and even more historical the invention of integers with decimal places

One adds to logic not subtract from it else it becomes very confusing not to say entirely unnecessary as old knowledge has to be discarded
Can you actually give an example of a basic axiom in logic that has been replaced purely arbitrarily - no because it would serve no purpose
Also was logic invented by us or did we merely discover it - for is it not a mind independent discipline rather than an exclusively human one
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

"God as Unnecessary is Proof for Existence" thread.

Necessity, or rather lack of, is not a proof for existence.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Skepdick »

bahman wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:21 pm By logically impossible I mean an objective idea that cannot be objectively real, like squire circle.
1. The phrase 'objective idea' is an oxymoron - all ideas originate within the subjective.
2. To make square circles a logical possibility, one simply needs invent a logic which allows for it.

Here is a geometry which allows for square circles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

Q.E.D
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Skepdick »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm What would be the consequences for logic and mathematics and syllogisms if logic could be replaced entirely at will
There is no consequence to logic. There is a consequence to how we use logic and what we use logic for.

Because logic is invented, and because logic systems can be constructed at will there are two distinct ways you can use it:
1. Start with premises (axioms) -> arrive at conclusions (theorems)
2. Start with conclusions (theorems) -> arrive at premises (axioms)

The latter is considered a logical fallacy, but that is nonsense. #2 is precisely what the field of reverse mathematics concerns itself with.

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm The Law Of Non Contradiction would no longer be sound
It's arbitrarily chosen. Like all axioms. Including the axiom of choice.
Mathematics inherently accepts free will - without choice, you can't do any Mathematics.

Fundamentally - consistency (formalised as the LNC axiom) is a human value.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm Certain mathematical equations would no longer be true
They would be true within one mathematical system and false within another mathematical system. You get to choose.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm Sound arguments would become invalid by having invalid premises
See above. If one subscribes to reverse mathematics, the falsity of one's premises does not necessitate the falsify of one's conclusions.

Fundamentally and in practice "reverse mathematics" is exactly what physicists do. They start with empirical phenomena and convert those to Mathematical axioms.

Physics is the formalisation (algorithmisation? I just made that word up) of intuition.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm For all these reasons logic cannot be purely arbitrary but must have clearly defined prescriptive rules
Rules maketh logic. Humans choseth rules.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm Mathematics is a sub set of logic and a deductive discipline so arbitrary logic would be entirely useless
Depending on how you define 'logic' and 'mathematics' - for my intents and purposes they are equivalent. Formalisms.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm All probabilities exist between 0 and I but if 0 = I then that spectrum would no longer exist any more
All the rational and irrational numbers between 0 and I would go too
Also any equation where the answer was somewhere between 0 and I

Logic may only be true within the axioms that it operates from but that is not a sound reason to tinker with those axioms
Instead new logic should be added to the body of already existing logic such as for example the invention of the complex
number line that exists perpendicular to the standard number line where neither contradicts or invalidates the other one
A more historical example would be the invention of 0 and even more historical the invention of integers with decimal places
You can do all of the above. If you choose to.
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm Also was logic invented by us or did we merely discover it - for is it not a mind independent discipline rather than an exclusively human one
It's a fair question and it boils down to semantics. You could say that at first we discovered logic through introspection and analysis of the very languages we speak. The expression of our intuitions. By doing that we came up with the notions of 'grammar', 'syntax' and 'semantics' which allowed us to talk about our languages. And we discovered a modicum of structure in the way we use language to communicate with others. Language was reduced to logic.

Through all this collective insight eventually we learned how to engineer/invent logics.
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:35 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 24, 2019 4:11 am Another issue is whether you mean 'universe' or The Universe [in caps].
Often God is ultimately associated with the creation of The-Whole-Universe which is not empirically possible.
I mean a universe that is possible. I don't think that our universe is the only one. Our universe exists as an objective idea too. It is objectively real.
Whatever is objectively real must be capable of being justified empirically and philosophically. It is the same of whatever that is possible to be real.

Whatever that is possible is represented by two categories, i.e.
  • 1. Can be empirically justified and thought
    2. Can be thought only
Whether there are one, two or multiple universes they are subjected to human definition, otherwise whose else?
In all cases, if these universes are to be objectively real, then they must be able to be justified empirically and philosophically.

If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.

All the above qualifications are necessary to avoid rhetoric and equivocation with a universe and a creator that is impossible to be verified to be real empirically and philosophically.
Skepdick
Posts: 14365
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:01 am If a thing can be thought only but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically, it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real.
Horseshit. That's literally how creativity/invention works.

First you imagine it. Then you manifest it. Mere thoughts become empirical reality.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 25, 2019 2:01 am All the above qualifications are necessary to avoid rhetoric and equivocation with a universe and a creator that is impossible to be verified to be real empirically and philosophically.
If you accept empiricism/science, then you necessarily accept induction as a valid method of justification.
If you accept induction as a valid method of justification, then through induction you can justify that the universe is created.

If humans can create/invent universes ( computer simulations/virtual realities ), then there is every reason to induce that the universe we live in is created also. There is absolutely non reason to dismiss the hypotheses that you and I are Sentient Artificial Intelligences.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: What is the need for God?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
If a thing can be thought but without any empirical elements and cannot be justified empirically it is merely a thought and cannot possibly be real
This is false because what may be empirically impossible now may not be so in the future
There should therefore be no temporal imposition on what is or is not empirically possible
Post Reply