Truth!

[Love4All]

Response to 7
See post 5
Post 5 implies that God created logic and can violate logic if he chooses to.

I submit that if Logic exists, then either God created it, and therefore it cannot have power over Him, or, it exists as an attribute of God, and is part of His nature.

I submit that, in light of, “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” it is the latter.

 

[Love4All]

That’s not what I said. I said, that if God doesn’t exist, something else would have to be self-existent or always existing, and there would need to be minds to conceive of logical laws. Logic isn’t a self-existing, non-material entity but a system of necessary and self-referential concepts that exists in minds.

“Something coming from nothing” doesn’t violate a logical law, but a metaphysical one in understanding what “nothing” is.

If it exists in our minds, but isn’t self-existing, then did we make it up? If so, couldn’t we change it however we wanted to?

 

[Simpleton]

Would 1+1 still =2 if God did not exist? Is some truth independent of God? Does even God have to obey the inanimate laws of logic?

From what I’m aware of the answer is; nope. God is the source of existence; therefore, nothing can exist without Him.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I once heard that “time” was the measurement of change. In that context, if there was nothing then nothing could change and there would be no time

I’m sure there are other definitions as you said.

That’s the classical definition, yeah.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If it exists in our minds, but isn’t self-existing, then did we make it up? If so, couldn’t we change it however we wanted to?

I don’t think that follows. Logic or the laws of logic are abstract concepts and therefore require minds to exist, just like moral truths and mathematics. It doesn’t follow that they are made up. Why can’t they be discovered, intuited or infused forms of knowledge? They would be very strange things to “make up” since they quite conveniently and (if random) so unexpectedly conform reality to our understanding (interior authentication) while also working in the real world (exterior authentication). Furthermore, it’s not at all clear, if they were made up, how this process happened, since it is obviously not a conscious process. Finally, if they were made up it seems true, as you say, that we could change them however we wanted, but it also seems impossible to in fact change them in the slightest.

 

[Pugsly]

Would 1+1 still =2 if God did not exist? Is some truth independent of God? Does even God have to obey the inanimate laws of logic?

Let me paraphase your question…“Would truth be truth if truth did not exists?”

 

[wittgenstein]

Suppose I wanted to make one thing and then one other thing. I also want that to be 3 things. Obviously I cannot. I am constrained by logic. This must mean that logic exists before I make my attempt. The question is, "was God constrained by logic when he created something from nothing? If no objects * exist does that mean that logic doesn’t exist? In my opinion, No.

• Logic is not an object.
  PS: see post 16. If logic did not exist that would supply a totally materialistic explanation of how something came from nothing, in other words an explanation for the creation of the universe that does not require God.

 

[wittgenstein]

Response to post 19,
If only extension * existed, that would not impact my point.

• However, even the idea that it is possible for only extension to exist is contentious. If no objects existed there would be no extension (the belief that extension would still exist without objects is a very Newtonian view,that space is absolute not relative.)

 

[Love4All]

I don’t think that follows. Logic or the laws of logic are abstract concepts and therefore require minds to exist, just like moral truths and mathematics. It doesn’t follow that they are made up. Why can’t they be discovered, intuited or infused forms of knowledge? They would be very strange things to “make up” since they quite conveniently and (if random) so unexpectedly conform reality to our understanding (interior authentication) while also working in the real world (exterior authentication). Furthermore, it’s not at all clear, if they were made up, how this process happened, since it is obviously not a conscious process. Finally, if they were made up it seems true, as you say, that we could change them however we wanted, but it also seems impossible to in fact change them in the slightest.

Indeed, it even seems that whenever we talk philosophically about God, we assume that God also can’t change the rules of Logic in the slightest. Also, Saint John wrote that in the beginning was the Logos. I see a connection here.

 

[Jaysuitical]

Would 1+1 still =2 if God did not exist? Is some truth independent of God? Does even God have to obey the inanimate laws of logic?

The laws of logic aren’t ‘inanimate’ since only animate creatures endowed with reason are capable of abstracting & formulating them. There is no way even to conceive of a world in which minds don’t act in this way, except in a sort of worthless sophist’s manner of playing with words and symbols.

Truth inheres in God, not God in a higher, separate, Truth, Truth and Being being convertible terms, and God being pure act.

 

[wittgenstein]

" inanimate " means non-living. Are you suggesting that logic is a life form? Or are you saying that anything created by a living being is alive. Birds create nests. However, nests are not living things.
Am I correct in saying that you believe that God created logic? ( which is cool and the central question of this thread) As for truth being =to being, that is confusing ontology with epistemology.
For example, the Copernican theory is a proposition (that happens to be true.) However,it is not an object that one can point at. One can point at a planet going around its sun. However, one cannot point at a theory.
To say that truth and being are convertible (interchangeable ) terms is like confusing the signifier “dog” with an actual dog. One does not feed and take care of the word “dog”.

 

[MarkThompson]

Would 1+1 still =2 if God did not exist? Is some truth independent of God? Does even God have to obey the inanimate laws of logic?

We’re on to page 3, and still nobody has given the correct answer. Since God is necessary (in modal terms), counterfactuals which deny his existence cannot meaningfully be entertained. (Under ordinary logical rules, all conditionals P → Q, where P is an impossible antecedent and Q is any proposition at all, come out as vacuously true.) Likewise, it cannot be asked, “If 1+1 equaled 6,” or “If syllogisms did not work,” “would there still be six regular solids?” or “would the reflexive property in multiplication still hold?”

Or to put it another way,
It used to be said that God could create everything, except what was contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is, we could not say of an "unlogical"world how it would look. To present in language anything which “contradicts logic” is as impossible as in geometry to present by its co-ordinates a figure which contradicts the laws of space; or to give the co-ordinates of a point which does not exist. We could present spatially an atomic fact which contradicted the laws of physics, but not one which contradicted the laws of geometry.
–L. Wittgenstein, Tractuatus 3.031 - 3.0321