Intelligent Design/Fine Tuning Question

  • Thread starter Question.Everything
  • Start date

golgotha61

World Christian in Progress
Supporter
Jul 19, 2011
752
48
Ohio
✟79,112.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I understand all of that, but how is logic not reliant itself on the physical laws of the universe? Logic is a nonphysical property, meaning it's really not anything but a description of something else. Logic tells us how the universe works, but if our universe had different properties there would be different logic.

If logic were reliant on the physical law that it governs, what we have is an illogical statement. The law of non-contradiction does not rely on the law it is involved with, but rather the law of non-contradiction necessarily governs that law. In order to determine if the law is functioning according to its characteristics defined, the law of non-contradiction must determine if the law is contradicting itself and thereby behaving as the law is defined.

If logic were reliant on the different physical laws then there would be different definitions of logic and logic would no longer be universal, but it is. Therefore logic must necessarily govern the natural and physical laws.

I am encouraged that you realize that logic is non-material but it is an entity and not a method. To deny these definitions I have given in my various posts is to violate two laws of logic: the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.



Yes, I do not know where logic originates. And likewise my goal here isn't to convince any Christian that their belief is insane or anything like that. But what does bug me is that Christians claim knowledge of things that are completely unknowable at this point. It seems many do not take things with an open mind.


[FONT=&quot]Point noted and I agree. My signature says this: [/FONT]“In the essentials, unity; in the nonessentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”-Rupert Meldenius
Determining the origination of logic is not essential but accepting the existence of God as true is essential.

I can only defend myself and I have already stated that my thesis as to the origin of logic does not prove God is the originator. However, it does show that the non-material exists which adds to the dimension of the cosmos. This in turn gives weight to the possibility that God exists. There is more to the cosmos than the material and the natural. There is the supernatural that must be dealt with.

Where do you believe logic originates?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Q

Question.Everything

Guest
If logic were reliant on the physical law that it governs, what we have is an illogical statement. The law of non-contradiction does not rely on the law it is involved with, but rather the law of non-contradiction necessarily governs that law. In order to determine if the law is functioning according to its characteristics defined, the law of non-contradiction must determine if the law is contradicting itself and thereby behaving as the law is defined.

If logic were reliant on the different physical laws then there would be different definitions of logic and logic would no longer be universal, but it is. Therefore logic must necessarily govern the natural and physical laws.

I'm still a bit confused, as my understanding is that physical laws and logic go hand-in-hand...not that logic dictates the physical laws. This indeed is why I said if you change our physics, you change the logic as well. The logic is still universal in this aspect.

What I am saying is that if you did tweak the physical laws, logic would have to change. But you can't 'tweak' logic and make the physics of the universe change, because logic is non-physical and not actually real like physics is. It's just a description.


I am encouraged that you realize that logic is non-material but it is an entity and not a method. To deny these definitions I have given in my various posts is to violate two laws of logic: the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction.

I suppose what I just said kind of conflicts with my statement that logic is an entity. If tweaking the physics changes logic, is logic not dependent on physics?

I can only defend myself and I have already stated that my thesis as to the origin of logic does not prove God is the originator. However, it does show that the non-material exists which adds to the dimension of the cosmos. This in turn gives weight to the possibility that God exists. There is more to the cosmos than the material and the natural. There is the supernatural that must be dealt with.

Where do you believe logic originates?

I still don't know where it originates, I'd contend only that it originated at the point that the physical laws of our universe originated.

I think we're taking a step back because of my mis-step in conceding that logic is a nonphysical entity. To me it still seems like more of a description of how the material world operates, not a force behind how it operates. That being said, I'm not sure if there is anything in this universe non-material. Thoughts come to mind, but technology is allowing us to actually see visualizations of peoples' thoughts through brain scanning; suggesting that even thoughts are material.
 
Upvote 0

bling

Regular Member
Supporter
Feb 27, 2008
16,163
1,805
✟794,962.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
We agree on this, maybe you misinterpreted what I said. The math on it is pretty good but like you said, with our current technological capability we can't test it. So it's a very loose theory.



It's a difficult question to answer, and at this point we don't know exactly. To me it is both sensible that either:

a) Some supreme intelligence planted the seed of life on our planet.
b) Life arose from inanimate matter by a process we just don't fully understand yet (abiogenesis)




Haha, I don't think we do. I think the concept of infinity is just as puzzling is the concept of there being "nothing" before spacetime began. You can't say it had to exist without fully understanding every bit of physics behind it.



Right, we haven't been able to replicate abiogenesis yet. But I think it's something we may discover in the coming decades or centuries.



I do not believe in God, so I see no purpose in acting like he is there. If anything I act like a humanist. I think that we do not have all the answers, but we can at least realize who we are and try to preserve that and grow on it.



Well, my conclusion is that I don't know. Neither science or religion really supports that.
Did I fulfill my main objective with this discussion?


Is there logic behind a belief in God?


Is it logical to belief that total random actions produced intelligence?



Is it more logical to believe something has to come from something else, than it is to believe something came from nothing?


It takes faith to trust that random matter and energy could produce life and/or intelligence?
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What a sad story it would be if God created us, wasn't happy with it, slaughtered everybody with the flood, gave us another chance, and then sits back and laughs at us when we try to understand the reality we live in. I truly and deeply hope this is not who our creator is.

You're twisting my words and you know it. It would be our arrogance God would be laughing at, not the honest pursuit of knowledge. People who think they know more than they actually do tend to let their egos inflate, and they mistake theory for fact.

For the laymen, they spout out information they've heard and believe it without question. And for the experts, they defend theories about alternate realities and string theory (something they can't prove is true), and they turn around and claim that God doesn't exist (because we can't prove He exists). They're the ones who think they can tell us how old the universe is when they can't even predict the rain tomorrow with certainty. These are the people worth laughing at.

PS: Just so you can't twist my words again, I'll be thorough and say this is a common human trait, not just one of atheists. Christians do it a lot too, unfortunately. Atheists just make a living on it, and because they label it as "science" instead of "religion" hold a monopoly of power over public opinion, the media, and the indoctrination of future generations.
 
Upvote 0
Q

Question.Everything

Guest
It would be our arrogance God would be laughing at, not the honest pursuit of knowledge.

Why would it be funny to God that his creation (even after a second try) turned out to be mostly arrogant and going to hell? To me it would be extremely sad, not one part about it would be funny.

People who think they know more than they actually do tend to let their egos inflate, and they mistake theory for fact.

I think virtually all Christians are guilty of this. Christians claim to know that Christian God created us and furthermore that they have a personal relationship with our creator. Do you not see the arrogance in this to the majority of the human race that can't seem to find any proof for this God?
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I am not sure how you can think it's sensible that a completely invisible 'value' has the capability to think and create matter.

I never said that God was an invisible value, you did. I said God was an incorporeal entity. And God is not, as an entity, only incorporeal, but also immensely powerful, all-knowing, and personal. Such an entity could very easily have created the universe.

Your analogies are still irrelevant, colors and numbers are not things...they are not capable of doing anything.

Yes, they are things - just not material ones, which was the only similarity I was drawing between them and God.

If is is possible that aliens planted the seed of life on earth, you can admit that you do not know if God created the universe?

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. Why does acknowledging something as improbable as aliens seeding life on earth require that I admit that I don't know whether or not God created the universe? :confused:

"If successfully proven"

You are correct. Nobody has successfully proven the origin of all matter. Any logical deductions are still theoretical until they are proven.

Proven by what? Logic proves a number of things about the origin of matter. Science cannot provide corroboration of what logic proves since it is not equipped to assess conditions before matter and energy existed. Science deals only with the material universe, not the non-material state that must have existed before the universe began to exist.

Selah.
 
Upvote 0
Q

Question.Everything

Guest
I never said that God was an invisible value, you did. I said God was an incorporeal entity. And God is not, as an entity, only incorporeal, but also immensely powerful, all-knowing, and personal. Such an entity could very easily have created the universe.

I'm still hung up on how something nonmaterial can have power on material things. Has there ever been any evidence that this can happen?

I don't understand your line of reasoning here. Why does acknowledging something as improbable as aliens seeding life on earth require that I admit that I don't know whether or not God created the universe? :confused:

If you know that God created the universe and human life, it is not possible that life was planted by aliens.

Proven by what? Logic proves a number of things about the origin of matter. Science cannot provide corroboration of what logic proves since it is not equipped to assess conditions before matter and energy existed. Science deals only with the material universe, not the non-material state that must have existed before the universe began to exist.

Logic alone does not provide knowledge of anything.
 
Upvote 0
B

blackjellybean

Guest
circular_reasoning.gif


Circular reasoning is valid when it's true.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I hope you and Aiki don't mind of I toss in my two cents worth on these questions.

I'm still hung up on how something nonmaterial can have power on material things. Has there ever been any evidence that this can happen?

One thing jumps to mind, but you may not accept it. Human thought is an immaterial thing, yet it has been shown that thought has a physical effect on the brain as well as leading to actions in reality that affect the material world. Honestly, there are many who hold a completely materialistic view of human being, and would say that thought is a result of changing brain activity... I believe that our immaterial soul produces thoughts which express themselves physically in changing brain activity. At this point, and perhaps forever, we can not prove which of these is true. At the very least, our ability to act contrary to our thoughts implies that something beyond mere physical reactions in our brains exists in our personalities, which leads one to lean towards believing in an immaterial soul.



If you know that God created the universe and human life, it is not possible that life was planted by aliens.

If directed panspermia were the case, we would just be moving the origin of life question back one species. How did the alien life come to be? Ultimately, this hypothesis just moves the whole question out of our range to know empirically since we have no access to alien biology or to any idea of what conditions are/were on their home planet. This concept does not answer the origins of life and is beyond proof... why has it been introduced?



Logic alone does not provide knowledge of anything.

I am just beginning to study logic, so I don't know for sure whether that is a true logical statement or not. I will say that logic applied to reality can indeed tell us quite a bit. Your statement implies that there is no reality to apply logic to, yet this is flatly contradicted by my ability to determine logically that at least I exist. So logic can prove my existence, and thus some reality does exist. At the least, your statement is pointless unless I am missing something from the preceeding discussion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Q

Question.Everything

Guest
One thing jumps to mind, but you may not accept it. Human thought is an immaterial thing, yet it has been shown that thought has a physical effect on the brain as well as leading to actions in reality that affect the material world. Honestly, there are many who hold a completely materialistic view of human being, and would say that thought is a result of changing brain activity... I believe that our immaterial soul produces thoughts which express themselves physically in changing brain activity. At this point, and perhaps forever, we can not prove which of these is true. At the very least, our ability to act contrary to our thoughts implies that something beyond mere physical reactions in our brains exists in our personalities, which leads one to lean towards believing in an immaterial soul.

On the contrary, the more we learn about the brain provides more and more evidence that thoughts are material. Did you know that we are beginning to actually see images of peoples' thoughts just from brain scanning?

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind

Now, this does not mean we're at the point of absolutely proving that thoughts are material, but it does show us that there is evidence that they are material. Just like in your sense, to me it's common sense that thoughts are material. So we look at the evidence to come to our conclusions.

So I'll stand by my original statement that we can see no examples of immaterial things even existing, more so having power on the material.

If directed panspermia were the case, we would just be moving the origin of life question back one species. How did the alien life come to be? Ultimately, this hypothesis just moves the whole question out of our range to know empirically since we have no access to alien biology or to any idea of what conditions are/were on their home planet. This concept does not answer the origins of life and is beyond proof... why has it been introduced?

It was introduced because it is at least possible, even if improbable. If it is at least possible panspermia is true, it is impossible to say that you know Christian God created life.

Your statement implies that there is no reality to apply logic to, yet this is flatly contradicted by my ability to determine logically that at least I exist. So logic can prove my existence, and thus some reality does exist.

Logic does not prove that you exist; you do not know you exist because of logic. You know you exist because you're able to interact with the world and experience it, and then reflect on that experience (logically sometimes). You can use logic to deduce that you exist, but the actual experience of existing is what proves it to you.
 
Upvote 0

food4thought

Loving truth
Supporter
Jul 9, 2002
2,929
725
50
Watervliet, MI
✟383,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
On the contrary, the more we learn about the brain provides more and more evidence that thoughts are material. Did you know that we are beginning to actually see images of peoples' thoughts just from brain scanning?

Scientists use brain imaging to reveal the movies in our mind

Now, this does not mean we're at the point of absolutely proving that thoughts are material, but it does show us that there is evidence that they are material. Just like in your sense, to me it's common sense that thoughts are material. So we look at the evidence to come to our conclusions.

So I'll stand by my original statement that we can see no examples of immaterial things even existing, more so having power on the material.

Well obviously we disagree here, but I think I understand where you are coming from. It is true that science is revealing more and more material aspects of brain function... because that is what science is a test for: material causes and effects.

This is a worldview issue. I am a Theist, and I think you might consider yourself a naturalist/materialist. From that worldview, everything has a material explanation because all that exists is the material. From my worldview, there are immaterial factors that cause material effects. Occam's Razor aside, neither worldview can be proven, it is a matter of faith. Before you get upset at me accusing you of something as vile as having faith, let me define it as I think most Christians understand it (as opposed to the straw man definition I have heard many times on this site):

Faith is belief without proof... or better yet, it is belief BEYOND the evidences.

We all use faith when we make decisions regarding things that we have no hard proof for, only supporting evidences that are ultimately inconclusive. You believe that the mind/brain is entirely physical in it's nature despite the fact that you cannot prove this... you have faith that science will one day provide the proof. I believe that there is an immaterial soul behind the physical manifestations of the mind/brain, although I cannot prove it to you... I have faith that God will one day prove it to you (hopefully before you die).


It was introduced because it is at least possible, even if improbable. If it is at least possible panspermia is true, it is impossible to say that you know Christian God created life.

Have you recently heard from any aliens that claim to be responsible for life on earth? I have heard from the Christian God, so...

Logic does not prove that you exist; you do not know you exist because of logic. You know you exist because you're able to interact with the world and experience it, and then reflect on that experience (logically sometimes). You can use logic to deduce that you exist, but the actual experience of existing is what proves it to you.

True to an extent... but logic does prove one exists, although it is not the only pathway to that conclusion. But if I choose to be skeptical of the reality of my sense perceptions, logic is very handy.
 
Upvote 0