God and the nature of the Universe

[Methinx]

I tend to agree with skepticalbip.

Surely an eternal, transcendent, absolute, incorporeal, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God creating everything from nothing has already shown that he can work outside logic and could easily create a married bachelor... if believers want him to.


According to this essay:
"Logic is nothing more than a pre-defined CONTEXT-BASED system of derivational inference. Humans have invented thousands of Systems of Logic, many of which are incompatible with each other. Since logic is context-based, one logical system is not applicable to all others. Hence, it is impossible for logic to be absolute! As a system of inference, logic is predicated on the context of its axioms (contextual rules) and its premises (assumptions) which set a starting point on the system’s derivational inference tree."

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS

 

[iolo]

There seems, in America, to be a fascination with reliving debates from over a century ago. What is the point of it?

Well, I do try, but you keep getting in the way with all this 'God' stuff. I suppose a high proportion of Americans have only recently come across Nineteenth Century Doubt, whereas back in my childhood all Anglicans took it for granted.

You invited yourself into a thread by CC to address his thoughts on a theological position that he thinks presents a contradiction. I began to point out that he did not represent the theology accurately. You arrogantly trolled in by claiming we immature Americans are wasting our time with such outdated topics of reasoning. I suggested you simply move on, because thus far you obviously have nothing to offer but subjective, groundless, ineffective, tangential insults.

Please feel free to find a thread that matches your maturity. We certainly aren’t forcing you to waste your time here.

It is a bit like all the American waffling-on about the outmoded concept 'race' - pure self-indulgence, always accompanied by aggression against anyone who points out the obvious archaism of this nonsense - very like the drivel that tells us that giving idiots bang-bangs to kill one another somehow makes them 'free', when any professional army could round them up in five minutes. You don't really live in the distant past, you know, and it would be a good idea to stop pretending you do.

 

[Malintent]

Well it is rather amazing that the 'nature of the universe' is rather formulaic . One can invent all types of measuring units and find the universe would still seem logically calculable. Before man came about, maths was waiting there to be discovered.

(Not suggesting this means anything its just fascinating.)

It is It is like a quote that was attributed to Michelangelo; That the sculpture is already embedded in the marble, all the artist must do is chip away the unnecessary bits to reveal it.

 

[Malintent]

You invited yourself into a thread by CC to address his thoughts on a theological position that he thinks presents a contradiction. I began to point out that he did not represent the theology accurately. You arrogantly trolled in by claiming we immature Americans are wasting our time with such outdated topics of reasoning. I suggested you simply move on, because thus far you obviously have nothing to offer but subjective, groundless, ineffective, tangential insults.

Please feel free to find a thread that matches your maturity. We certainly aren’t forcing you to waste your time here.

It is a bit like all the American waffling-on about the outmoded concept 'race' - pure self-indulgence, always accompanied by aggression against anyone who points out the obvious archaism of this nonsense - very like the drivel that tells us that giving idiots bang-bangs to kill one another somehow makes them 'free', when any professional army could round them up in five minutes. You don't really live in the distant past, you know, and it would be a good idea to stop pretending you do.

Kind of like this arbitrary and immature notion of Nationality... these invisible borders that are complete figments of people's imagination... leading to all this waffling about AMERICANS are this and those people on the other side of that line are that... and never mind those upside down people that live all the way over THERE!

Like that, right? or maybe it's the same thing... Nationality, race, gender, age... it all comes down to the same thing.... Local Culture.

 

[Eric H]

Cheerful Charlie;
This then must include, the very logic of the universe, the laws and regularites of the Universe. God would naturally create the best of such things that could be created.

God did not create the best that could be created, we all die, and death has to be the greatest imperfection.

God is said by these same theologians to be good, and to love us. This we know because God has sent us a trustworthy revelation, the Bible, the explain such things.
[h=1]John 3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.[/h]

God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself, he can do no more. We are created in the image of God, and he gave us the greatest commandments, to love God and to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. God has given us the freedom to be like him, he can do no more. If everyone loved their neighbour as they loved themselves, this world would be a better place.

If God is good, he would if possible eliminate all moral evil. Since God creates the nature of the Universe, its logic, its laws, its rule, this would be a trivial operation for God. God could create all men with a god-like good nature and a god-like free will.

God will eliminate all moral evil, we are each given the chance of a greater good life after death.

Obviously, moral evil exists.

Agreed.

So we have to either give up the claim God creates the logic and laws of the Universe, or the claim God is good and is concerned with us.

If the latter, then we give up the claim that we have a reliable revelation from God. If the former, we have to explain where the logic, laws and rules come from if not from God.

As far as I can see, this construction calls theological reasoning about the existence of God into question.

Perfect Being Theology

If God exists, then he must be eternal, if we are to be like him, then we shall also be eternal, but God's will be done, and as you desire, moral evil will no longer prevail in God's kingdom.

 

[iolo]

It is a bit like all the American waffling-on about the outmoded concept 'race' - pure self-indulgence, always accompanied by aggression against anyone who points out the obvious archaism of this nonsense - very like the drivel that tells us that giving idiots bang-bangs to kill one another somehow makes them 'free', when any professional army could round them up in five minutes. You don't really live in the distant past, you know, and it would be a good idea to stop pretending you do.

Kind of like this arbitrary and immature notion of Nationality... these invisible borders that are complete figments of people's imagination... leading to all this waffling about AMERICANS are this and those people on the other side of that line are that... and never mind those upside down people that live all the way over THERE!

Like that, right? or maybe it's the same thing... Nationality, race, gender, age... it all comes down to the same thing.... Local Culture.

Since the USA is the world centre of capitalism, it inevitably has an immensely strong State to control the swag, and in my own view it is the way this State prevents the discussion of new ideas that causes the problem.

 

[remez]

…..no, my presentation is not a strawman.

We need to clarify a couple of issues here with your case for contradiction. Lets examine……

Words often have various meanings. "Logic" certainly does.

I concur and have addressed that notion.

What I meant in the OP was reality, the way things work in this material world.

This is what I’ve been accused of transgressing even though I’ve expressed the two distinctions. The science of logic vs the raw existence of logic in reality. Also note my earlier distinctions of skeptic vs theist reality

Further, theologians logically distinguish between the physical laws of nature and the logic of reality. The physical laws (a subset) that govern our universe (your reality) were created by God. The logic that pervades our universe is eternal by nature of the creator (theistic reality.)

Sorry I keep having to present this context but I’m not trying to debate whether the skeptic or theist worldview is more plausible. I’m concerned you recognize the proper difference and accurately present the proper theistic view.

Theologians reason logic to be a subset of reality not reality itself. So specifically with this next quote I’m addressing the logic of reality not all of reality.

Now either God creates that reality, that logic (Descartes and others) or God does not.

That statement presents a false dilemma from a theologian’s pov. This is analogous to the Euthyphro dilemma for morality. God does not create morality and logic they are characteristics of his nature that are manifest in reality. Thus the reasoning that logic is eternal. That which is eternal is not a created thing. If logic were created then we indeed would be faced with the Euthyphro dilemma for logic.
So….

To claim that theologians reason that God created logic (a subset of reality) is a straw man. Theologically logic is uncreated.

But to assert that since logic exists and is not created by God then you created a contradiction against …God created all things.

Now it is true that theologians don’t believe that God created logic, but this does not create a contradiction with God created all things, because theologically logic is an uncreated eternal characteristic of God that is imaged in his creation.

This proper theological reasoning was not reflected in your case for contradiction.

And that was the problem in the OP here….

The theologians tell us that God created all things, and that nothing exists outside of God. God is transcendent and created all other things. This then must include, the very logic of the universe, …..

Coupled with….

Now either God creates that reality, that logic (Descartes and others) or God does not.

Thus you appear to have created a straw man only to construct a false dilemma.
Any questions?

 

[atrib]

You’re sort of making my point that if the universe was operating logically, before there were humans around to invent logic, then there would logically have to be a personal agent responsible for that logic. But I digress.

The universe does not operate logically, its operation appears to be based on some underlying principles which we humans call the laws of nature. Logic is a man made construct and cannot exist in a universe without human brains, or similar sapient brains, to develop the tools of logic. I don't think you know what the word logic means.

 

[atrib]

This is what I’ve been accused of transgressing even though I’ve expressed the two distinctions. The science of logic vs the raw existence of logic in reality. Also note my earlier distinctions of skeptic vs theist reality

Logic is not an inherent property of the universe like matter and energy, it is an artificial construct devised by human minds. Logic does not exist in the raw, it exists only in the minds of humans and the writings produced by humans.

Further, theologians logically distinguish between the physical laws of nature and the logic of reality. The physical laws (a subset) that govern our universe (your reality) were created by God. The logic that pervades our universe is eternal by nature of the creator (theistic reality.)

You are making up shit here. There is no logic of reality. Again, I suggest you read up on what the word logic actually means.

 

[abaddon]

remez is likely defining "logic" in whatever way he thinks that “proper theologians” interpret the Bible to mean by “Logos”.

So, ya’ll are talking past each other. remez hasn’t just conflated logic and reality. He’s conflated logic, the thought-organizing tool, with the Christian “Logos”.

 

[Learner]

My understanding (although limited) would suggest to me that from the universe and the very laws of nature, 'logic' is easily derived from the 'expected predictability' -the widely known results gained from the known studied laws of nature. We expect the sun to always rise at a particular time and how much quantity of heat or electricity we add to an element to make affect its various intended particular property, which today would be measured and aimed for by tables and graphs previously deduced from early refining of experiments.

Only the unit of measure is manmade.

(Sort of what everyone is saying, I think)

 

[remez]

The universe does not operate logically, its operation appears to be based on some underlying principles which we humans call the laws of nature. Logic is a man made construct and cannot exist in a universe without human brains, or similar sapient brains, to develop the tools of logic. I don't think you know what the word logic means.

You are trying to reason which worldview is more plausible here. I'm not.

I’m only trying to clarify the theological worldview that I felt was misrepresented and misunderstood in the OP.

I completely understand what the thesis of your opposing worldview of methodological naturalism espouses…..logic is manmade etc.

You are making up shit here. There is no logic of reality. Again, I suggest you read up on what the word logic actually means.

No I am not. Think about it. Isn’t the OP trying to present a conflict between attributes of God to demonstrate that theology is unreasonable? One of those obvious attributes is super intelligence. Thus theologically speaking, God’s super intelligence, the “logos” (as I mentioned before), existed in the eternal God. Again theologically speaking his creation reflects that eternal uncreated intelligence that we discover and study in the science of formal logic.

Your posts are challenging the rationality of the two worldviews. I’m only trying to clarify a misrepresentation of the theology involved.

Thus I'm not challenging the rationality of your worldview here, only trying to clarify the theology in regards to the presented false dilemma that God did or did not create logic.

 

[remez]

My understanding (although limited) would suggest to me that from the universe and the very laws of nature, 'logic' is easily derived from the 'expected predictability' -the widely known results gained from the known studied laws of nature.

Ok, let’s journey a little further below the homocentric surface here.

We discovered a pattern that in nature that free objects fall to the earth. We did not invent those patterns. Once we discovered and tested these patterns we invented laws about gravity. Our scientifically invented laws did not invent gravity itself. They discovered what was there long before human minds were around to invent the “laws.”

So it can get a little confusing as to what exactly was invented and what was discovered.

 

[Learner]

Ok, let’s journey a little further below the homocentric surface here.

We discovered a pattern that in nature that free objects fall to the earth. We did not invent those patterns. Once we discovered and tested these patterns we invented laws about gravity. Our scientifically invented laws did not invent gravity itself. They discovered what was there long before human minds were around to invent the “laws.”

So it can get a little confusing as to what exactly was invented and what was discovered.

Its better to clarify and say that there are NO manmade inventions when it comes to the natural laws/forces that we have observed and recorded. These are all discoveries and so we really only devise the method to describe what nature actually does.

 

[blastula]

Realism and Instrumentalism

 

[skepticalbip]

My understanding (although limited) would suggest to me that from the universe and the very laws of nature, 'logic' is easily derived from the 'expected predictability' -the widely known results gained from the known studied laws of nature.

Ok, let’s journey a little further below the homocentric surface here.

We discovered a pattern that in nature that free objects fall to the earth. We did not invent those patterns.

Absolutely... you are right so far.

Once we discovered and tested these patterns we invented laws about gravity.

Damned. And you started out so on the button. We didn't invent the laws of gravity. Gravity already existed and we just described what we carefully measured to already exist in mathematical expressions. Our math is not "the law" but only a description of it.

Our scientifically invented laws did not invent gravity itself. They discovered what was there long before human minds were around to invent the “laws.”

Where did you get the idea that anyone thinks we "invented laws"? We only used our invented system of logic to allow us to understand and describe those already existing laws.

So it can get a little confusing as to what exactly was invented and what was discovered.

It isn't confusing at all. Those "patterns" you started your post with are the "natural laws". Our mathematical descriptions (that you are calling our invented laws) are simply a description of those natural laws (or as you call them, patterns).

 

[remez]

.... We didn't invent the laws of gravity. Gravity already existed and we just described what we carefully measured to already exist in mathematical expressions. Our math is not "the law" but only a description of it.

I concur.

I reason that for the most part you and I agree. This is what I meant by it gets confusing and it seems like we are talking past each other.

When you said…

Gravity already existed….

…. I agree. But I was pointing out that we discovered the existing natural patterns not invented them.

However when you said…

and we just described what we carefully measured….

….I was pointing out that the “description” we devised and called the laws of gravity were invented, but based on what we discovered in nature.

Now……

… We only used our invented system of logic to allow us to understand and describe those already existing laws….

That perfectly represents a belief of your worldview….humans invented logic. I understand that thesis. Only a mind could do such a thing.

So let’s take the next step. A theologian now questions, “How did humans develop the laws of logic? We reason, the same way they developed descriptions of the laws of nature….they observed what was already there to begin with and then developed a description. So……

In the same manner that we “describe” nature with our laws. A theologian reasons that our “laws of logic” are (in the same manner) a description of the rational patterns that already exists in nature. A theologian reasons that the existence of that pattern, of rational nature, comes directing from the rational eternal mind of the creator. We just go one mind further.

Now again, I’m not trying to present which worldview is more plausible, but only that the theology presented to make a case of contradiction was misrepresented and misunderstood specifically here……

Now either God creates that reality, that logic (Descartes and others) or God does not.

Because, theologically speaking, logic is not created it is part of the eternal nature of God.

I’m not asking you to agree with the theology here, only to recognize that it was misrepresented and misunderstood in the case CC was attempting to make.

 

[remez]

Ok, let’s journey a little further below the homocentric surface here.

We discovered a pattern that in nature that free objects fall to the earth. We did not invent those patterns. Once we discovered and tested these patterns we invented laws about gravity. Our scientifically invented laws did not invent gravity itself. They discovered what was there long before human minds were around to invent the “laws.”

So it can get a little confusing as to what exactly was invented and what was discovered.

Its better to clarify and say that there are NO manmade inventions when it comes to the natural laws/forces that we have observed and recorded. These are all discoveries and so we really only devise the method to describe what nature actually does.

Theologically reasoning…..Yes and no.

I concur, the “devised methods” (including the “laws of logic”) are reasoned from discoveries of what was already there.

But I would reason that “devised method” is by its’ own semantics…… is an invention.

The terms "invented" and "discovered" both find their way into the reasoning here, but need to be carefully distinguished. Hence why it can get so confusing, trying to convey our ideas here on a message board with only prose.

 

[skepticalbip]

I concur.

I reason that for the most part you and I agree. This is what I meant by it gets confusing and it seems like we are talking past each other.

When you said…

Gravity already existed….

…. I agree. But I was pointing out that we discovered the existing natural patterns not invented them.

However when you said…

and we just described what we carefully measured….

….I was pointing out that the “description” we devised and called the laws of gravity were invented, but based on what we discovered in nature.

This seems to be a concerted effort to mangle the English language, ignorance of the meaning of words, a complete lack lack of understanding of science, or a combination of all..There was nothing "invented". To observe something and describe it is NOT inventing it. The laws of nature simply are - our mathematical description of those laws (as best we understand them) are simply descriptions of what we observe and understand from our observations.

The goal of science is to try to understand and describe the universe as it is, not to "invent" a universe.

If I "invented" new laws of motion contrary to what Newton described then the universe would simply ignore my "new laws" and continue behaving as it always has.

Now……

… We only used our invented system of logic to allow us to understand and describe those already existing laws….

That perfectly represents a belief of your worldview….humans invented logic. I understand that thesis. Only a mind could do such a thing.

So let’s take the next step. A theologian now questions, “How did humans develop the laws of logic? We reason, the same way they developed descriptions of the laws of nature….they observed what was already there to begin with and then developed a description. So……


In the same manner that we “describe” nature with our laws. A theologian reasons that our “laws of logic” are (in the same manner) a description of the rational patterns that already exists in nature. A theologian reasons that the existence of that pattern, of rational nature, comes directing from the rational eternal mind of the creator. We just go one mind further.

Again, I would suggest that you look up the meaning of the word, "logic". The quoted "argument" seems to by nothing but an attempt at a nonsensical strawman.

I have never seen a theologian make such a mangled argument (though there may be some). The arguments I have seen from theologians are generally more logical although they also generally contain the logical fallacy of assuming the conclusion or begging the question.

But then I would assume that a theologian would grant that god, being perfect, would not need logic. Logic is a structured method of reasoning (a tool) to better find truth but an omniscient god would already know truth so wouldn't need such a tool, only humans with their faulty reasoning would find logic useful.

Yet again, please look up the meaning of the word, logic.

ETA:
You may also want to look the meaning of the word, invent.

 

[Draconis]

I've long had problems believing that logic needs a universe in which to exist. eg the concept of A and Not(A) will always = 1, as it does in normal situations, even if there are no sentient beings to conceive it. Does that concept really need a universe in order to exist? Do the concepts of truth or falsehood need to be specifically created, or does God get them for free?