God or no God, there's still no inherent meaning. Logic and mathematics is literally just pushing symbols which have no meaning.
Logic and mathematics structures a framework of meaning, and symbols communicate the relationships of that meaning. That meaning doesn't arise out of vacuum and it's not arbitrary.
I really would like you to explain to me what is involved in logic or mathematics aside from assumptions and definitions. I see no need for a god in this process.
Well, there's no need for Samsung as a company either when all you need to do is to push a remote button and flip to a channel to do what you want... watch something you like. But Samsung is a requirement for the TV to exist. Otherwise you are in a reality in which meaning is localized to a disjointed functionality which is circularly justified to "work" because it does something you predict.
My "brain chemical processes" are better than yours if I'm able to use mine to predict future events and make computers. Your assumption of God does none of that.
Why would that make them better if either fundamental assumption allows for the same kind of predictive qualities? Are you suggesting that theists are unable to build computers or predict events? Theism is merely a layer that links certain framework of meaning in reality. It doesn't magically change its nature or gives people abilities that they don't already have.
Likewise there are plentiful scientific theories that have no pragmatic applications at all or move our lives in either direction. It seems to me that you are suggesting to ignore every concept that doesn't "predict future events" in some manner that allows you to build products and services.
It does NOTHING.
Quite the opposite. As a fundamental agent that's assumed, it's responsible for meaning of everything. That fundamental aspect is relevant to how we perceive each other and the reality we occupy, and it drives our core actions towards one goal or another.
Now, given your assumptions, there is no meaning in reality beyond what you project. All you can identify are consistencies that you can cling to and communicate. You can then invent whatever meaning you want to link the facts that we observe. And as long as you find the pluralistic consensus of societal framework and follow some pragmatic curve... you can occupy our time building bridges to nowhere above the ocean of absurdity. So, to you, having a computer seems to be better than not having one, but you don't bother to justify the standards of "better" that you are referring to and why you think it makes things better. You can make a case that it makes things faster. Is faster better? Hence, you have nothing to cling to when you are appealing to "better" here.
Given my assumptions, there is meaning and we discover it and don't invent it. Hence there are things that would be clearly and contextually wrong precisely because there's a network of meaning embedded in reality in a total sense, and not only isolated contexts, and that's only possible if certain conscious agency is directing the process, be it in defining the initial structure, or maintaining the structure and rules.
It doesn't necessarily alter the scientific methodology we use, but it would change one's perception of self as it relates to reality around us. It's a question relevant to totality of reality and not individual bits that you can predict.
Last edited:
Upvote
0