What is the need for God?
What is the need for God?
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.
-
- Posts: 4330
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: What is the need for God?
a power source for priests ...
-Imp
-Imp
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What is the need for God?
"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.
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.
Re: What is the need for God?
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.
Re: What is the need for God?
Possible is only possible in relation to not-possible.
Reality is pure potential actualised.
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.
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.
Eternity can only mean a discriptive of NOW. And now is all that is ever known.
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.
.
Re: What is the need for God?
By logically impossible I mean an objective idea that cannot be objectively real, like squire circle.Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 6:14 amFalse 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.
Re: What is the need for God?
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 "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 think the problem is resolved considering the previous comment.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 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.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.
Re: What is the need for God?
True. I don't understand what these have anything to do with what I stated.
True. And the same.
I know good and evil in the same instance.
I cannot follow you here.
No. Eternity means a duration that has no beginning or end. Now is just an instant.
I don't agree.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is the need for God?
What would be the consequences for logic and mathematics and syllogisms if logic could be replaced entirely at willSkepdick 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
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
Re: What is the need for God?
"God as Unnecessary is Proof for Existence" thread.
Necessity, or rather lack of, is not a proof for existence.
Necessity, or rather lack of, is not a proof for existence.
Re: What is the need for God?
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
Re: What is the need for God?
There is no consequence to logic. There is a consequence to how we use logic and what we use logic for.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
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.
It's arbitrarily chosen. Like all axioms. Including the axiom of choice.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm The Law Of Non Contradiction would no longer be sound
Mathematics inherently accepts free will - without choice, you can't do any Mathematics.
Fundamentally - consistency (formalised as the LNC axiom) is a human value.
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 Certain mathematical equations would no longer be true
See above. If one subscribes to reverse mathematics, the falsity of one's premises does not necessitate the falsify of one's conclusions.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 7:39 pm Sound arguments would become invalid by having invalid premises
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.
Rules maketh logic. Humans choseth rules.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
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 Mathematics is a sub set of logic and a deductive discipline so arbitrary logic would be entirely useless
You can do all of the above. If you choose to.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
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.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
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.
-
- Posts: 12357
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: What is the need for God?
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.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2019 5:35 pmI 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.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.
Whatever that is possible is represented by two categories, i.e.
- 1. Can be empirically justified and thought
2. Can be thought only
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.
Re: What is the need for God?
Horseshit. That's literally how creativity/invention works.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.
First you imagine it. Then you manifest it. Mere thoughts become empirical reality.
If you accept empiricism/science, then you necessarily accept induction as a valid method of justification.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 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.
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: What is the need for God?
This is false because what may be empirically impossible now may not be so in the futureVeritas 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
There should therefore be no temporal imposition on what is or is not empirically possible