Doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have been created. They could be a result of the universe rather thank a mind.
Not necessarily
without the laws of logic you can't use logic. Therefore logic cannot have created the laws of logic
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Debate of God.
- Thread starter Daviso452
- Start date
Doesn't necessarily mean that they have to have been created. They could be a result of the universe rather thank a mind.
Not necessarily
without the laws of logic you can't use logic. Therefore logic cannot have created the laws of logic
apophenia
Well-Known Member
meddlehaze
Ambassador
Your second sentence defeats the first. These laws transcend the make-up of the universe (space, time, matter, etc.). They are true at all times, in all places. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Earth, Mars, or the in-between. They all can't be a result of the universe as the universe is not a thinking mind.
I agree
What's to stop the laws of logic from having always existed? Also how do you know the universe isn't a thinking mind?
meddlehaze
Ambassador
I don't understand your first question. And it hasn't given me even the slightest reason to believe it's thinking.
The laws of logic or logical absolutes. What reason is there that they couldn't have always existed.
Just because it hasn't given you a reason to show it's thinking doesn't mean that it isn't.
meddlehaze
Ambassador
"Since the nature of logic is conceptual and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual upon which logical processes are based, it would seem logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them."
I completely agree, but this does justify my disbelief.
Or that they only exist as a tool to explain what we observe.
of course
godnotgod
Thou art That
It's a notion of God patterned after our own views. The image is that of God as maker, as artisan, such as a potter, or designer. This view of the universe is called the artifact view, in which the universe and all it contains are created 'things', like pots, or puppets. Having been so 'created', they are, of course, subject to destruction. They have no independent existence of their own, totally dependent upon their creator. The creator God is often depicted as a potter or designer/architect, as in:
meddlehaze
Ambassador
They don't account for their own existence though.
Neither does the universe or the transcendent mind...
meddlehaze
Ambassador
The first one yes, through study of cosmology one will come to realize the universe has a beginning. (law of entropy, decay, etc.)
However, through the philosophy of God one will come to realize He had no beginning and has no end, for He is eternal. Thus, needing no account for His existence.
Until further evidence suggests otherwise at least
You can't have an uncaused cause. Even if there could be an uncaused cause, it isn't necessarily God.
meddlehaze
Ambassador
Okay. For the sake of conversation we can say this is true, at this point. With that information, we must conclude that there was a first cause.
If this uncaused first cause is transcendent, is it really dependent on the laws of the universe to exist? It caused the laws, mindfully (as we have seen in our previous dialogue), so who's to say it can't bend these laws?
That would make sense.
It would have to be
No. Unless we're defining existence as being exclusive to the universe
We did? Who says that it chose to create rather than just being the catalyst or cause?
If logic is also transcendent then it's subject to it. Logic seems to suggest that you can't have an uncaused cause, as that's a logical contradiction
The singularity is basically a description of "nothing." As our language (and cognitive ability in general) lacks the capacity to speak of things existing or happening without space or time, then (if time had a beginning) we can either not talk about anything before the big bang, or we can come up with something to refer to what the big bang came from. Our world, as we normally experience it, is 3 dimensional. The fact that we can relate space and time via the speed of light allows for another dimension (at least) of our experience, but for most intents and purposes. 3d works. We're also comfortable with the notion of 2-dimensional space or 1-dimensional space (it's easy to picture a flat surface or a line, or points on a plane or a line). However, it's much harder to imagine 1000th dimensional space even though from a mathematical/geometical standpoint this isn't a problem (although graphical depictions of such spaces obviously differ from the coordinate plane or a 3d space).
The same is true when it comes to 0-dimensional space. The singularity was a "point" with no volume and a reality without time. In otherwords, to say a 0-dimensional point was anything is basically a contradiction.
It means the big bang theory traces the origins of the universe back to a point when it began to expand. This "point" "had" no mass, no matter, "existed" in nothing and of nothing. I put the square quotes around the verbs because for some action (like having or existing), to occur, it requires time, but there "was" not time.
No.
Because that allows us to talk about the "point" from which the big bang expanded.
godnotgod
Thou art That
So the 'point' from which the Big Bang expanded may have been devoid of Time, Space, and Causation?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
No it doesn't.
A rock is not an action. A tree is not an action.
You are speaking in nonsense terms, buzzwords that sound cool but have no actual meaning. New age hippy speak.
godnotgod
Thou art That
Sorry, but 'new age hippyspeak' is in YOUR mind, not mine.
So tell me: what do you say rocks and trees are? Careful.
re: 'nonsense' terms: you know, the universe does not conform to YOUR intellectual concepts. So what seems to 'make sense' (ie; 'fit in your box) is not necessarily the way things actually are. It is easy to drive a square peg into a round hole and proudly proclaim your 'accomplishment'. That you cannot comprehend the dancing of the universe is perhaps due to the fact that what 'makes sense' to you is blocking your vision.
Last edited:
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I say that rocks and trees are objects, not actions.
How does one "tree"? Have you ever thought, "Look at the way that guy is treeing"? I know I haven't.
Sounds to me like you are saying, "These are all pretty and beautiful things, therefore the universe is an entity."
Oh, and you also mentioned that Humans are a way the universe expresses itself. Does it have feelings and thoughts it needs to express?