'Knowledge' of Existence

[gaara4158]

There still seems to be a few hundred views, so I don't think we have lost "the audience" if that is what you prefer to call them.
I haven't claimed that "logic exists, therefore God exists".
I think you haven't shown how the Laws of Logic still apply whether or not we humans exist or not.

Why would I want to show that? I've been railing against that this whole time.

No, we don't agree. You think that the Laws of Logic are human descriptions of the facts of reality. Am I correct?
I don't agree, we know that the Laws of Logic still apply in every instance of existence, any possible world and they existed before humans were on the earth.

No, we agree that they are the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. We agree that they are real, as conceptual frameworks required for meaningful thought. We disagree on the point where you claim they apply outside of that. Again, it's a meaningless truism to state that the laws of logic apply in all possible worlds, because a "possible world" is defined as a world whose description does not invoke any logical contradictions.

I believe that they co-exist with reality. I believe that whether or not we make statements about reality or not, the Laws of Logic still apply. They still apply even when human minds don't exist, because they are woven into existence. It is more reasonable to think that these universal abstract truths of truth originate from mind. Since our minds are not the mind that are required for the Laws of Logic, an eternal non-changing mind is necessary and that necessary mind is God.

I know that's what you believe. I'm asking you to demonstrate it.

Is truth only true if it is stated?

Is truth a thing?

I haven't claimed that all things are contingent upon the Laws of Logic, I have said that existence and the Laws of Logic co-exist; that the Laws of Logic are woven into existence.

Demonstrate that, then.

No, because my claim is that it is More reasonable and the best explanation for the Laws of Logic in the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview means the God of that worldview. I don't have to defend any other religion's theology.

More reasonable than what?

1. How human minds connect or bridge the Laws of Logic to our minds.

Connect? Bridge? Our minds operate on them. Study psychology if you want a deeper explanation than that.

2. How the Laws of Logic still apply to any possible world.

By definition. A possible world isn't an actual alternate dimension, it's a category of worlds which can be described without invoking a logical contradiction.

3. How abstract truth of truths are just definitions.

Not all truths are definitions, but some are.

4. How all this and existence itself fits into your own worldview.

I don't necessarily have an account for all of existence. I am not so arrogant to say that I know exactly how all of this came into being. I'm just arrogant enough to doubt that anyone else knows either. As for the laws of logic, they are fundamentally axiomatic.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would I want to show that? I've been railing against that this whole time.

Sorry, I should have asked how you think that Laws of Logic don't apply when there are no humans.

No, we agree that they are the law of identity, the law of non contradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. We agree that they are real, as conceptual frameworks required for meaningful thought.

They are required to have rational thought.

We disagree on the point where you claim they apply outside of that. Again, it's a meaningless truism to state that the laws of logic apply in all possible worlds, because a "possible world" is defined as a world whose description does not invoke any logical contradictions.

First of all, how can truth ever be meaningless? How do you explain in your position, that we can not only connect what we experience in the world and organize them accordingly but create in our minds other possible worlds and discover and know absolute truths?

I know that's what you believe. I'm asking you to demonstrate it.

For anything to exist and not not exist is self evident that existence and the Laws of Logic co-exist and are woven together. The only time that they would not exist, is if nothing existed.

Is truth a thing?

You tell me. I think that truth is inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.

Demonstrate that, then.

I did. If anything exists, it exists and does not not exist at the same time. That is a Law of Logic that co-exists or is woven into existence itself.

More reasonable than what?

Than other explanations.

Connect? Bridge? Our minds operate on them. Study psychology if you want a deeper explanation than that.

Operate on what?

By definition. A possible world isn't an actual alternate dimension, it's a category of worlds which can be described without invoking a logical contradiction.

Which by necessity require the Laws of Logic to categorize worlds.

Not all truths are definitions, but some are.

So how are any?

I don't necessarily have an account for all of existence. I am not so arrogant to say that I know exactly how all of this came into being. I'm just arrogant enough to doubt that anyone else knows either. As for the laws of logic, they are fundamentally axiomatic.

But you are so arrogant to say that it is not God? The Laws of Logic are absolute truth about truths that are necessary for any thought to make sense.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You are confusing reality with the Laws of Logic.
*snip*

Nope. My worldview has a very clear and concise distinction between the two. My worldview says (for example) reality just is things being identical to themselves, and the law of identity is a description of that fact. The description could disappear tomorrow, and things would continue to be identical to themselves.

Yours is predicated on the invention of a separate category of existence- the 'Laws of Logic', or 'truths about truth' - which 'co-exist' with and are 'woven into' reality. This is completely redundant and needless. There is no need to invoke reality plus an extra tier of existence. Reality is just fine on its own.

Yahweh is, as per usual, an unnecessary assumption.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. My worldview has a very clear and concise distinction between the two. My worldview says (for example) reality just is things being identical to themselves, and the law of identity is a description of that fact. The description could disappear tomorrow, and things would continue to be identical to themselves.

Yours is predicated on the invention of a separate category of existence- the 'Laws of Logic', or 'truths about truth' - which 'co-exist' with and are 'woven into' reality. This is completely redundant and needless. There is no need to invoke reality plus an extra tier of existence. Reality is just fine on its own.

Yahweh is, as per usual, an unnecessary assumption.

You do know that the Laws of Logic are general and abstract truth about truths...right? The Laws of Logic give us the truth that if anything exists, existence does not not exist. You can't have existence without the law that A = A they are woven together. Do you see?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. My worldview has a very clear and concise distinction between the two. My worldview says (for example) reality just is things being identical to themselves, and the law of identity is a description of that fact. The description could disappear tomorrow, and things would continue to be identical to themselves.

Yes. Exactly. So they don't depend on humans to describe the facts or truths about those truths and humans don't 'invent' them. The Laws of Logic are necessary truths they are not 'things' but they do exist and they exist only if something exists..i.e reality. Reality is just things being identical to themselves but the conceptual Laws of Logic are necessary truths that exist and they are inescapable rules of existence.

Yours is predicated on the invention of a separate category of existence- the 'Laws of Logic', or 'truths about truth' - which 'co-exist' with and are 'woven into' reality. This is completely redundant and needless. There is no need to invoke reality plus an extra tier of existence. Reality is just fine on its own.

It isn't redundant, as reality exists so do the inescapable rules of that existence.

Yahweh is, as per usual, an unnecessary assumption.

That is your opinion, but you don't have a good reason to believe that the universe should be ruled by inescapable rules of existence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

you don't have a good reason to believe that the universe should be ruled by inescapable rules of existence

You don't have a reason to believe the universe is ruled at all.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Reality is just things being identical to themselves but the conceptual Laws of Logic are necessary truths that exist and they are inescapable rules of existence.

It is redundant. You could very easily just have stopped at 'reality is just things being identical to themselves', and your statement would have been perfectly adequate. There is no need to invent a separate category of existence - where 'Laws', 'truths' and 'rules' reside - that is 'interwoven' with reality. Reality just is those things which the laws describe.

Or I suppose I should say, I have no need to invent such a thing. You do, because you need to make Yahweh appear necessary to the equation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't have a reason to believe the universe is ruled at all.

Oh really? Laws govern the universe, are you denying that?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Oh really? Laws govern the universe, are you denying that?

Yes. Have you not been reading the thread. Laws describe the universe. The universe just is ... as far as anyone, including you, can tell.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is redundant. You could very easily just have stopped at 'reality is just things being identical to themselves', and your statement would have been perfectly adequate. There is no need to invent a separate category of existence - where 'Laws', 'truths' and 'rules' reside - that is 'interwoven' with reality. Reality just is those things which the laws describe.

Or I suppose I should say, I have no need to invent such a thing. You do, because you need to make Yahweh appear necessary to the equation.

Yet, reality just being things identical to themselves does not hold to those things having a truth value. That comes with thought. A rock is a rock is true, but it takes thought to make a truth value to it. So, the Laws of Logic are necessary truths about truths, necessary true propositions. We know that propositions are real, but they are not physical, they are thoughts. They can't be dependent on our thoughts, because we are contingent beings and they are necessary thoughts. No, physical entity is necessary. If they are necessary thoughts which needs mind, and are not contingent upon us, there must be a necessary existent mind. Thus, the Laws of Logic imply the existence of the non-physical God as the necessary mind.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. Have you not been reading the thread. Laws describe the universe. The universe just is ... as far as anyone, including you, can tell.

The Laws of Logic are necessary truth about truths that co-exist with the universe. Everything we know in the physical world has a sufficient cause, why do you feel it is sufficient to claim the universe just is?

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is the null hypothesis. If you think there is something more, the onus is on you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is the null hypothesis. If you think there is something more, the onus is on you.

If you wish to conclude that the universe just exists because it exists and does not need sufficient explanation, then that is your choice. Most minds want to inquire why the universe exists and how it came to be. If you do this however, you must then try to explain how the universe as brute fact, is governed by laws that are necessary to understand it. In other words: matter exists, matter does not think, how does matter which does not think become matter that can think? How, does matter which does not think become matter which understands matter? 'Just because it is' may be sufficient for you, but that seems more like sticking your head in the sand to me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

but that seems more like sticking your head in the sand to me.

And it seems to me that for you reality is not enough. *shrug*

 

[Oncedeceived]

And it seems to me that for you reality is not enough. *shrug*

Reality implies, the Laws of Logic, laws that govern the universe, and how these correlate to us as minds. Reality is not enough, because reality contains all of this and more.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Reality implies, the Laws of Logic, laws that govern the universe, and how these correlate to us as minds. Reality is not enough, because reality contains all of this and more.

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

Right, there is no evidence for the Laws of Logic, the Laws that govern the universe nor minds that can correlate them...what state of being are you living in?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yet, reality just being things identical to themselves does not hold to those things having a truth value.

'Things' don't have truth value. To say that 'this rock is true' or 'this tree is true' is to speak gibberish.

Statements about things have truth value. To hold up a rock and say 'this is a rock' would be a true statement, in that it comports with reality. But that true statement does not hold reality in check. It has no causal interaction with reality. The statement, and the person who made it, could disappear, and the rock would still be identical to itself. Only the label would perish.

You have invented a separate category of existence - 'Laws', 'truths', 'rules', - to help shoehorn Yahweh into the equation. You are welcome to do that, of course, but don't pretend like it's a necessary assumption that others have to make along with you.

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry, I should have asked how you think that Laws of Logic don't apply when there are no humans.

Because the laws of logic are laws of thought, and if there are no humans around to think, there is no "logic."

First of all, how can truth ever be meaningless? How do you explain in your position, that we can not only connect what we experience in the world and organize them accordingly but create in our minds other possible worlds and discover and know absolute truths?

Ok, not entirely "meaningless," but uselessly redundant. "All possible worlds follow the laws of logic" is synonymous with "Things are themselves in worlds where things are themselves." This is absolutely no different from just saying "Things are themselves." It doesn't get us anywhere.

For anything to exist and not not exist is self evident that existence and the Laws of Logic co-exist and are woven together. The only time that they would not exist, is if nothing existed.

That's clearly not self evident since I don't see it that way at all. What does it mean for existence and logic to be "woven" together?

You tell me. I think that truth is inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts.

Are facts things, or are they true statements? Or are true statements, themselves, things?

I did. If anything exists, it exists and does not not exist at the same time. That is a Law of Logic that co-exists or is woven into existence itself.

As far as I can tell, it's woven into language. All of existence is largely a mystery to me. I wonder what you know that I don't?

Than other explanations.

But not more reasonable than withholding a final conclusion due to insufficient data (including the possibility that no explanation is indeed needed), I presume?

Operate on what?

The laws of logic... they're literally called the laws of thought.

Which by necessity require the Laws of Logic to categorize worlds.

Yes, and categorization is a mental process, not an aspect of reality.

So how are any?

A=A is the epitome of a definition, and yet, you agree that it is true. So obviously some definitions are true. I might even go so far as to say all definitions are true, except the "truth" of a definition seems to be subject to the consensus of the communities in which it is used as a technical term. A=A, Snake=Legless, scaled reptile of suborder Serpentes. These are truths, and they are definitions.

But you are so arrogant to say that it is not God? The Laws of Logic are absolute truth about truths that are necessary for any thought to make sense.

I have other reasons to say that it is not God, but for now I am arguing that your reasons are not sufficient to suppose that it is God. The laws of logic are necessary for thought to follow the laws of logic. And?

 

[Oncedeceived]

'Things' don't have truth value. To say that 'this rock is true' or 'this tree is true' is to speak gibberish.

Exactly. That is what I said. So rocks and trees having identity of themselves has nothing to do with the truth that a rock is a rock and not a tree. The truth value comes from mind. However, human minds are not necessary for these Laws of Logic to exist. They exist whether we are here or not. They are not contingent on our minds and in fact, we are unable to recognize rocks are rocks and not trees due to the truths which come by way of the Laws of Logic.

Statements about things have truth value. To hold up a rock and say 'this is a rock' would be a true statement, in that it comports with reality. But that true statement does not hold reality in check. It has no causal interaction with reality. The statement, and the person who made it, could disappear, and the rock would still be identical to itself. Only the label would perish.

I agree, but the label perishing doesn't eliminate the Laws of Logic used to label it. You are claiming that we come first and then there are the Laws of Logic but that is impossible. We have to use the Laws of Logic to determine labels. We have to use the Laws of Logic to make statements. We have to use the Laws of Logic to have language that is not gibberish. The Laws of Logic have to be exist prior to our labels, descriptions, statements or language; otherwise, we could not cognitively relate what we observe in reality into labels, descriptions, statements or language.

You have invented a separate category of existence - 'Laws', 'truths', 'rules', - to help shoehorn Yahweh into the equation. You are welcome to do that, of course, but don't pretend like it's a necessary assumption that others have to make along with you.

You are denying the necessary link from the truths of the truth in reality to cognitive rational thinking. We simply could not know that a rock was a rock let alone that it was not a tree without using the Laws of Logic.