Whats your favorite argument for the existence of God?

[wanstronian]

I am talking about real and true logic, not someone’s attempt at logic. Someone presuming that this must be true due to that false assumption, is not using real and true logic because he has accepted a false premise.

The system of real logic requires that you accept that all things have a cause whether you know what that cause is or not. Logic is pointless if you do not accept that principle.

EVERY statement in logic is really, “be-cause of A and B then C must be”.

So do you accept that anything real must have a logical cause? If not, you are not believing in real logic.

…and later, I can explain that electron thing if you care.

Can you point me towards a resource that defines and explains what you call ‘real’ logic? Or is it just your definition of logic, that happens to support a methodology that supports your conclusion?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You’re very confident. Would you attempt the reasoning you provided in post #2?

One thing at a time. But I will have to ask you as well, "do you believe that real (meaning actually accurate) logic requires that one accept that all things have cause?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Can you point me towards a resource that defines and explains what you call ‘real’ logic? Or is it just your definition of logic, that happens to support a methodology that supports your conclusion?

No, but I’m sure there are plenty of them. I am only talking about the very most essential principle of logic. Most will probably not even bother discussing something so obvious. But if you care to refute it, you can investigate for yourself. Every course in logic will require what I have stated. They will usually just not bother to explain it before assuming you already accept it (Everyone really does. They just don’t realize it).

 

[wanstronian]

One thing at a time. But I will have to ask you as well, "do you believe that real (meaning actually accurate) logic requires that one accept that all things have cause?

I don’t think that can be known absolutely, because we don’t know everything about the universe. But it’s a reasonable assumption to make given what we do know.

So I’ll say “yes” and see where it leads.

 

[geometer]

No, but I’m sure there are plenty of them. I am only talking about the very most essential principle of logic. Most will probably not even bother discussing something so obvious. But if you care to refute it, you can investigate for yourself. Every course in logic will require what I have stated. They will usually just not bother to explain it before assuming you already accept it (Everyone really does. They just don’t realize it).

Logic is at best, and certainly best understood as pure mathematics. Reality might be said to be physics. It has never been observed that logic or mathematics caused any reality in physics.

Saying that the cause was logical defeats your argument, when you also ascert that you have no knowledge of the cause.

Is arithmetic the cause of money in a cash register?

No, I don’t think so.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t think that can be known absolutely, because we don’t know everything about the universe. But it’s a reasonable assumption to make given what we do know.

Try to make any logical argument without inferring “be-cause”.

If you want to hold the option to say, “logic can exist without cause”, then again, there is no point to discussion. Nothing said at all about anything can avoid the trap of “well, maybe it just happened without cause”.

Its interesting to me that the non-Christians have so much trouble accepting the most fundamental concept in all logic.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Saying that the cause was logical defeats your argument, when you also ascert that you have no knowledge of the cause.

What are you presuming my argument to be? I haven’t stated any argument. No one will commit to the idea that logic requires that all conclusions have cause.

A serious case of fear to commit yet very willing to conclude.

 

[geometer]

What are you presuming my argument to be? I haven’t stated any argument. No one will commit to the idea that logic requires that all conclusions have cause.

A serious case of fear to commit yet very willing to conclude.

I was simply responding to your statement that logic causes reality. You had said “Logical cause”. How is this different than “mathematical cause” or “arithmetic cause”? Any of these can only cause an abstract. Reality is not abstract. Reality is the whole which is abstracted from. How could an abstract of reality cause the whole of reality? All substances and kinds are created by what abstract item of logic?

 

[Just_Lurking]

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says there are true statements in arithmetic that can’t be proven. Let G1 be one of these true but unprovable statements, say the one constructed by Godel in his original proof.

What is the “reason” that G1 is true, given that normally one thinks of a proof as the reason that some mathematical statement is true, and G1 has no proof?

 

[geometer]

No one will commit to the idea that logic requires that all conclusions have cause.

The cause of all logical conclusions is well known. All logical conclusions are given though deductions from sets of axioms.

Have you studied any fuzzy logic yet? There is nothing simple minded about fuzzy logic…

 

[tonyrey]

                                                             Originally Posted by **tonyrey**                                      
             *1. Personal existence is the highest form of existence we know because persons are creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and have a capacity for love*

Subjective use of ‘highest’, but no big deal.

You need to show that there is a higher form of existence. Otherwise it is an objective fact that persons are superior to other things on account of their powers and capacities. The success of science is objective evidence for the power of rational creativity.
One test is whether you would kill a person for the sake of something else, e.g. a heap of diamonds. Another is whether you would choose to be something else, e.g. a gorilla or Mount Everest…

1. The most adequate explanation of reality is in terms of the highest form of existence
   An assertion without foundation or explanation.

Do you expect a detailed explanation in a summary? If it is not the most adequate explanation of reality please provide a better one. We are waiting…

Also an apparent semantic redefinition of ‘existence’ from the previous step.

On the contrary there is a transition from “the highest form of existence” to “in terms of the highest form of existence”. It is a mistake to identify the two.

Quote:

1. Therefore the most adequate, intelligible and economical explanation of reality is a supremely creative, conscious, rational, autonomous, moral, purposeful and loving Being
   The result: subjective and undefined interpretations of ‘economical,’ ‘intelligible’ and ‘adequate’

Gratuitous objections. The objective meaning of all these terms is clear to everyone who understands the criteria of philosophical and scientific explanations. If you dispute any of them the onus on you is to explain how and why my explanation is not the most adequate, intelligible and economical - and to provide a more adequate, intelligible and economical explanation. Go ahead…

… warped and inadequate chain of logic;

Please indicate precisely where the logic is “warped and inadequate”.

…supported by and supportive of, a clear desire to arrive at the presupposed conclusion.

An argumentum ad hominem. It is equally facile to assert that your objections are based on a clear desire to reject the conclusion. Until you give an example of a higher form of existence your allegation that the conclusion is presupposed is worthless…

 

[James_S_Saint]

I was simply responding to your statement that logic causes reality.

I don’t think I made that statement…?

 

[James_S_Saint]

Have you studied any fuzzy logic yet? There is nothing simple minded about fuzzy logic…

The only thing fuzzy about fuzzy logic is the mind trying to deal with it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem says there are true statements in arithmetic that can’t be proven. Let G1 be one of these true but unprovable statements, say the one constructed by Godel in his original proof.

What is the “reason” that G1 is true, given that normally one thinks of a proof as the reason that some mathematical statement is true, and G1 has no proof?

Godel was merely proving that statements can be made that have no logic to them. In effect he said, “This statement is false. Now prove it.”

The fact of the matter is that it has always been possible to make “irrational” statements that are not in the scope of logic. He merely applied math to display such a notion. A logician doesn’t need math to know that an irrational statement can be made.

 

[James_S_Saint]

The cause of all logical conclusions is well known. All logical conclusions are given though deductions from sets of axioms.

Deductions are a form of saying, “be-cause of A and B, C must be.”

 

[Neil_Anthony]

What would you choose?

Cosmological: If there’s no creator, then how the he** did I (and all this other stuff) get here!!??

that’s the argument that gets me, so it’s the one I would use for other people.

 

[geometer]

I don’t think I made that statement…?

Why did you design your statements with th repeated use of “logical cause”? This is what has confused me. On second reading it seems that it is simply deduction that you regard as the supreme creative principle.

A theosophist would of course disagree, and God would probably say “make your own dirt.”

 

[James_S_Saint]

Why did you design your statements with th repeated use of “logical cause”? This is what has confused me. On second reading it seems that it is simply deduction that you regard as the supreme creative principle.

A theosophist would of course disagree, and God would probably say “make your own dirt.”

I guess we will never know. The insecurity level of the non-Christians is so high they can’t even commit to the fact that logic requires causal deductions.

Insecurity - Doubt and Discomfort - Faithless and Irrational.

 

[geometer]

I guess we will never know. The insecurity level of the non-Christians is so high they can’t even commit to the fact that logic requires causal deductions.

Insecurity - Doubt and Discomfort - Faithless and Irrational.

Jesus has never and will never demand that you adopt such agnosticism. He for one has commanded that you are to know.

I have shown through several clear examples that performing deductions is not the cause of reality.

“Insecurity - Doubt and Discomfort - Faithless and Irrational”

Now be honest, aren’t these the exact feelings that you are having now that your idol has been revealed. Naked deduction, is a little too naked it seems…

 

[Just_Lurking]

Godel was merely proving that statements can be made that have no logic to them. In effect he said, “This statement is false. Now prove it.”

The fact of the matter is that it has always been possible to make “irrational” statements that are not in the scope of logic. He merely applied math to display such a notion. A logician doesn’t need math to know that an irrational statement can be made.

I don’t understand this. G1 is a perfectly reasonable mathematical statement, of the form “Forall x. Q(x)”, where Q() is a complicated but well defined and easily checkable mathematical predicate. For any particular value of n, Q is true and provable, but there is no single proof of “Forall x. Q(x)”.