Degreed Philosohphers, Historians, Theologians & Scientists, HELP!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
I have come to an idea (correct, somewhat correct or incorrect) the cosmos/universe was made/created by a beings of superior reason. Our reasoning ability is analogous to it.

From Pythagoras to Plato to Galileo to Kepler to Hawkins, they hold that math or reason or idea or form run the universe. I do not know if I have stated their view accurately or not.

If they do hold that idea, I see them as correct to a degree, but incomplete. As I mentioned, I see reason present in the cosmos, but that reason is only analogous to our reasoning ability.

I do not know if or which people have stated that in the past–ANY HELP?!

THANKS
IF I AM INCORRECT, PLEASE BE GENTLE!
 
Kinda reminds me of what someone else said on this thread some time ago.

If the universe was created by accidents and mishaps, then why do we try to understand it through reason and logic? If it’s accidental, there is no true reason. For reason to exist, there must be a starting reason, not an accident.

just my :twocents:
 
Jim_Baur said:
I have come to an idea (correct, somewhat correct or incorrect) the cosmos/universe was made/created by a beings of superior reason. Our reasoning ability is analogous to it.

From Pythagoras to Plato to Galileo to Kepler to Hawkins, they hold that math or reason or idea or form run the universe. I do not know if I have stated their view accurately or not.

If they do hold that idea, I see them as correct to a degree, but incomplete. As I mentioned, I see reason present in the cosmos, but that reason is only analogous to our reasoning ability.

I do not know if or which people have stated that in the past–ANY HELP?!

THANKS
IF I AM INCORRECT, PLEASE BE GENTLE!
Click to expand...
I admire your energy but it is sadly missdirected. Really, you questions are pointless. :confused:
 
QUOTE=Jim Baur;10165257
From Pythagoras to Plato to Galileo to Kepler to Hawkins, they hold that math or reason or idea or form run the universe. I do not know if I have stated their view accurately or not.
If they do hold that idea…

HI Jim,
I think a good starting point would be to read the authors you are citing in order to be able to own an understanding of their arguments. May your Christmas be filled with peace and may God bless you. Amen.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I have come to an idea (correct, somewhat correct or incorrect) the cosmos/universe was made/created by a beings of superior reason. Our reasoning ability is analogous to it.

From Pythagoras to Plato to Galileo to Kepler to Hawkins, they hold that math or reason or idea or form run the universe. I do not know if I have stated their view accurately or not.

If they do hold that idea, I see them as correct to a degree, but incomplete. As I mentioned, I see reason present in the cosmos, but that reason is only analogous to our reasoning ability.

I do not know if or which people have stated that in the past–ANY HELP?!
Click to expand...
People try to make sense of the world, yes, because there are obviously patterns of order in it. This points to a creator because there is too much of this to have been accidental, yes.

But it’s not math or human reasoning that ultimately runs the universe for 2 very simple but subtle reasons:
  1. Thought requires a thinker, even mathematical thought.
  2. Math itself is technically an incomplete system and so is science, finally demonstrated by Kurt Godel, in 1930.
    So where does that leave us?
  3. We have a creator, but we are not the creator.
  4. The creator by definition has powers greater than us, most easily demonstrated by the fact that he has created a universe and we have not.
  5. The creator probably doesn’t consist only of what we would term “human reason” because human reason obviously has limits (Godel), although we can see that there are some similarities between our reason and the creator’s reason (comprehensibility of the world which the creator created).
  6. Our reasoning is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the world totally.
  7. So what else is necessary?
An easy article about Kurt Godel: miskatonic.org/godel.html

[PS. You called for degreed philosophers, historians, theologians and scientists. I have a graduate degree in Philosophy, and am a working scientist with US patents. Also a convert who found myself at the door of faith, by exactly the path you are discussing. I think that qualifies.]
 
Bballer32 said:
Kinda reminds me of what someone else said on this thread some time ago.

If the universe was created by accidents and mishaps, then why do we try to understand it through reason and logic? If it’s accidental, there is no true reason. For reason to exist, there must be a starting reason, not an accident.

just my :twocents:
Click to expand...
I believe that was me!!!
 
I thank all posters–all of them.

And thanks for your patience with my questions.

I apologize, and I mean it, if I am hurting any person!!!
 
Godel

I think that I read a book once: “Waiting for Godel.”

It was in an English class in college.

I have studied all the people that I mentioned.

THANKS!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Godel

I think that I read a book once: “Waiting for Godel.”

It was in an English class in college.

I have studied all the people that I mentioned.

THANKS!
Click to expand...
That was an existential piece of literature, which talks about the shock of finding ourselves in a non-deterministic world, nevertheless with the inescapability of reason and the reality of pain.

I’m talking about Godel the mathematician and his proof of incompleteness. It’s a more technical, analytical piece of mathematical logic.
 
Jim_Baur said:
I thank all posters–all of them.

And thanks for your patience with my questions.

I apologize, and I mean it, if I am hurting any person!!!
Click to expand...
You are not hurting anyone. But your questions are strange. I think if you would read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser or go to his blog site and study his blogs of the present and past and look over some of the links he has you will have a better idea of what kind of threads and comments are appropriate here. The same would apply to Peter Kreeft and Fr.Robert Spitzer. And I think they will help organize your thinking. We always wish you well, though it may not seem like it at times. 👍
 
Linusthe2nd said:
You are not hurting anyone. But your questions are strange. I think if you would read " Aquinas " by Edward Feser or go to his blog site and study his blogs of the present and past and look over some of the links he has you will have a better idea of what kind of threads and comments are appropriate here. The same would apply to Peter Kreeft and Fr.Robert Spitzer. And I think they will help organize your thinking. We always wish you well, though it may not seem like it at times. 👍
Click to expand...
Easy does it, Linus. Please turn off the bulldozer accessory. Some people have to start with a philosophical approach. It’s a style of thinking and not everyone has the same style. The method of research that works for you might not work for him, or me, or anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top