|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Because you can never be 100% sure of anything True... because we do not have all of the information. So to what do we look for clues? Logical consistency?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
No. The physical world would stay together just fine even if nobody had ever had a notion about it. You deny the laws of physics even though they are proven? You don't believe in gravity? Is gravity physical, or does it only affect the physical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
No it isn't. Logic is worthless without the physical observations for it to work on. It's nothing but a tool. Exactly (no slang there...) So logic is proven to exist, because of the physical world. We can compare the two...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Very good mark. Thank you.
Now see: http://EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused? -->EvC Forum: God caused or uncaused?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Taz:
The laws of physics are not proven. Believing or disbelieving in gravity doesn't affect the fact that it's there. Gravity is not physical in the sense that you are thinking. It's physical in the sense that it affects everything, including light. Evidence for god please. Reality is bound to affect everything. That's why god is called Reality as per Merriam-Websters. Evidence for God? "I Am the light f the world" Your doing fine on your own...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: So what is science testing for if not logical coherence? jar: Actually, understandability as opposed to logic. It doesn't matter if the correct answer is illogical as long as it is actually correct. Can things illogical be understood? Can something illogical be correct? Can jabberwocky make sense? jar: It is not logical that something can be both a wave and a particle, but somethings are. Like God being both God (spirit) and man (flesh) and the light of the world (logic)? Everything that we know is logical. We couldn't know it if it wasn't. Knowing depends upon it. Just because we cannot comprehend how the wave particle duality is solved doesn't mean that it isn't logical. I have faith that it is. 'God doesn't play dice'. Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Taz:
I tend to see logic as a tool for us to be consistent with ourselves and not as a mean to define the physical world. To use logic to define the physical world is like trying to detect cancer with a speed radar gun. I believe that you believe that...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Logic ie. God ie. reality ie. exists!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Ringo:
No. Logic doesn't "exist". Like the physical "laws", it's just a mental construct So our mental constructs do not exist as non-material entities thereby proving that the non-material dimension exists?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Keep thinking SurSteven, and watch out. Because the admins will get you for not responding with the proper etiquete.
Use the reply button in the lower right hand corner of each message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
You never answered the question jar. You're railroading the thread. using up the post count.
The only one palming the pea is jar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
mark24:
That logic = god is a baseless assertion. That god = reality is the same. Let me ask you this... Is reality logical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Rob: Is realty logical Mark24: No, it just is. We construct logical frameworks within which we explore the world around us. There's nothing "logical" about gravity, it just is, we may make logical statements about gravity, however. And the fact that we see logical relationships between gravity and the objects it governs, and the fact that they are indeed logically consistent with our constructs show that reality is indeed logical even before we supposed to understand it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
All I am saying is that A is A, and not -A.
God is logic. Therefore His logical reason for existing is found within Himself. It's like me saying that the law of noncontradiction is valid. The only for syaing that is because it would be a contradiction to say otherwise.
This kind of reciprocity in reasoning is ultimately unavoidable. For example, suppose you want to defend the idea that the senses are basically reliable. It would be fallacious to argue, “I believe in the reliability of the senses because I believe in the reliability of the senses.” That is begging the question. Nevertheless, we should all realize that it is absolutely impossible to argue for the basic reliability of sense perception without relying at least implicitly on sense perception. How do we argue for the reliability of our senses? We accumulate examples of times when our senses gave us true knowledge of the world. This is a perfectly sound induction. But how did we know that our examples even took place? How did we know our senses gave us true knowledge at these times? The answer is obvious: through sense perception. In what other way could one possibly demonstrate the reliability of the senses, except by relying on the senses? This is the kind of circularity or spiraling that Van Til pointed out in all human reasoning. It has nothing to do with begging the question. (http://www.thirdmill.org/...html/th/TH.h.Pratt.VanTil.2.html)
Consider the law of non-contradiction. How can it be logically justified? Of course, no one should say, “The law of non-contradiction is true because the law of non-contradiction is true.” That is begging the question. We may say that the law is self-evident, but that is an assertion, not an argument. Every linear argument we muster in support of the law of non-contradiction at least implicitly relies on the law. Sometimes, we argue for the law of non-contradiction by saying that its denial leads to absurdity. But to recognize absurdity we have implicitly to use the law of non-contradiction. At other times, we argue for the law by pointing out that every attempt to deny it requires the implicit use of the law. Once again, we rely implicitly on the principle to support the principle. Because the law of non-contradiction holds as a universal principle for all human reasoning, we can never reason properly without it, even as we defend its necessity. If it is indeed necessary for human thought, we then use it all the time, even when discussing the law itself. To acknowledge this is not to beg the question, it is merely to acknowledge the reality of how we come to know things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Archer:
Reality is just real. No disagreement there!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024