Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:Or fun and exciting!

Are you saying logic is not fun?

Proinsias wrote:Or fun and exciting!

Human beings explore and discover what is around them and assign meaning, definition to what was empirically discovered.

If we did not exist, then what was empirically discovered would still be, even without us to assign clarity to something as mundane as one star plus one star equals two stars…

Also without human beings would not negate the existence of a moral Creator either…

Pros, how long can you tread water?
-
-
-

I'm just getting into it, it's interesting. Not sure I'd go as far as fun.

The Hegelian logic I've been looking into is fascinating, if a little beyond me. The idea that all logic and reason flows from the indisputable and self evident principle of contradiction is not one I find particularly inspiring, we may be standing on the shoulders of giants but what are the giants standing on is of interest to me and it doesn't seem all that concrete.

Is it illogical to suggest that the principle of contradiction may apply to a set within the whole?

x-post

If we did not exist how do you know what could be empirically created would still be? It's like you know the mind of God, if God did not create humans then logically he would have created everything around us as it is minus us. Why would there be a place finely tuned for humans with no humans, seems illogical to me.

Proinsias wrote:x-post

If we did not exist how do you know what could be empirically created would still be? It's like you know the mind of God, if God did not create humans then logically he would have created everything around us as it is minus us. Why would there be a place finely tuned for humans with no humans, seems illogical to me.

How long can you tead water?
-
-
-

Long enough, so far. I like to think of it more as flowing like water than treading it.

How long can you cling to a rock?

Proinsias wrote:Long enough, so far. I like to think of it more as flowing like water than treading it.

How long can you cling to a rock?

Long enough for what?

As for the Rock – he has hold of me and I don’t have to worry about that…

That way, I no longer drift wherever the flow goes.

Heard you had bad winds in Scotland a few days ago – your home and area okay?
-
-
-

Heh, I need to come in and present the round and not round argument once again in conjunction with the law of non contradiction.

I am rather not surprised that "round" has to be distorted in order to deny the law of non contradiction.
The argument of the earth has hills and valleys and thus is not round is unfortuntly poor.

The first thing we need to ask. From where do we need to view the earth to see its shape?
One would hardly assert that you would see the shape or the earth viewing its shape walking the earth. It was believed at one point in time that the earth was flat.

Its a poor assertion that round is defined as a "perfect circle" and that there are varying degrees of "roundness".

The question you need to ask yourself is, can you actually perceive these varying degrees of roundness from the all encompassing perspective? Can you tell that the earth is not a perfect circle?

Better yet, even to your knowledge that valleys and mountains exist on the planet, why do you presuppose that the landscape has anything to do with the shape? One would not assert that a baseball is not round because of what it is covered and sew onto it., or a basketball is not round because it is orange and designed to be handled and dribbled, or that a bowling ball is not round because is has 3 holes in it for your fingers.

A circle is a shape and the earth is that shape from every angle where you view it in its entirety.

This "varying degrees of roundness" is a plural truth claim. Its like the blind men and the elephant. Its the exact same thing, actually. Only in this case you guys are trying to incorporate wooly mammoth as a possibility, lol.

Might I remind you all that the blind men and the elephant isn't argument for truth claims. Its a metaphor, and a bad one at that.

It's pretty obvious that objective truth is not a factual problem for Pro but a volitional one.

I mean no one lives this way. If so, Pro, I want you to sell all you have and send me the proceeds. Because there could be no difference between something and nothing. So, it is just as well that you are left with nothing, since it's possible that something could equal nothing and vice versa. Go on and put it into practice and we'll see how it works out. Just let me know and I'll Pmail you my wire transfer information.


Pros, I'm curious. I know you study philosophy. Have you studied Aquinas metaphysics. He deals with a lot of the things we are discussing here, such as the essence of roundness, and how something conforms to the essence.

B.W, I'm happy in the water and you're happy on the rock, to each his own.

Thanks for asking about the weather. All is well here. Things were getting a little worrying, buses being blown over and that sort of thing. Most employers, including mine, let us away as things started to get bad so I got to sit out the worst of it in the house. One of the garden sheds didn't cope very well but thankfully that's the worst I got of it.

domokunrox:
What's the issue with a plural truth claim, or degrees of truth?
If your absolute truth claim is that the earth looks round from far away you won't find much disagreement here.

jlay:
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying the principle of contradiction has no value or that one should abandon it. I'm suggesting it may not be a universal law. I use it daily and can see its practical utility in day to day life. In the same manner that whilst I do not have absolute faith in newtonian mechanics I won't be jumping off a cliff.

If I didn't know better I might think you are trying to trick me into heaven Matthew 19:21

I wouldn't go as far as to say I study philosophy but I've read a few books during my daily commute. I've not read Aquinas, I'll definitely look into him.

Proinsias,

The problem with a plural truth claim or degrees of truth is that it is philosophically and mathamatically impossible.
Again, once you introduce a plural truth claim or degrees of truth. You are actually introducing a metaphor, not a real truth claim.

An objective truth claim MUST BE independent of us. This is because it is an all encompassing claim.
2 + 2 = 4, and it cannot be any other number. Not 1,2,3,5,6,7, etc.
My front door is closed and locked. Not open, not closed and unlocked, not locked and opened
A right triangle has one 90 degree angle. Not zero, not 2, not 3.

How about this though?
|1 x X | = 5, solve for X
The answer is 5 or -5, BUT this is NOT a plural claim.
The answer is objectively 5 or -5. Not 5 for me and -5 for you. Notice my language included into my claim. It is 5 OR -5. It is NOT 5 AND -5.

Hence we are at the law of non contradiction. A truth claim cannot be at the SAME TIME AND SAME SENSE.

Again, we go back to the round and not round. The earth is either round or not round. It cannot be both. The earth is not a cube, prism, cylinder, etc. The truth claim has nothing to do with the nature of its "roundness". The nature of that is trivial at best.

This is simply the blind men and the elephant.
Several blind men fall into a ditch with an elephant.
One says its a spear, the other says its a tree, another says its a wall, another says its a rope, and so forth.
So what's the answer? Its obviously an elephant, right? But how do you know that?
Here is the trivial part of this stupid metaphor. The person who knows its an elephant is NOT BLIND and OBJECTIVELY it IS an elephant.

Again, I recommend all to read Its true for you, but not for me.
If you go to youtube type this into your searches.

Clete hux Jesus in an age of pluralism
William Lane craig Is one true religion possible?
John Lennox Do all religions lead to God?
Norman Geisler law of non contradiction

I am curious. Proinsias, do you belong to a unitian universalism church? Does one exist there?

Cheers domokunrox, my reading list is a little packed at the moment and the youtube links are 4hrs+, I'll have a look into your suggestions but taking a cursory glance I am familiar with many of the arguments especially those of William Lane Craig. In short my opinion is that Christianity and the Bible has some degree of truth as do many, if not all, other religions.

I appreciate that mathematics rests upon the principle of contradiction but I tend towards the opinion that mathematics is a human creation and not discovered. I disagree with the notion that philosophy is impossible without complete adherence to the principle of contradiction. Aristotle and Plato say that Heraclitus and others did not hold to the principle of contradiction, this does not stop these figures from being classed as philosophers or demand a complete rejection of their philosophy. I've long had an interest in Eastern philosophy which also has a history of viewing the principle of contradiction not as something beyond question. The teachings of Dogen's soto school and the Hindu ideas of dual monoism reaching back to Shankara would be good examples. Recently I came across the Christian philosopher Nicolas of Cusa did not hold to it absolutely and more recently philosophers such as Hegel, Cunze and Camus. The work of Hegel in particular looks to be something that is going to take time to investigate.

As far as I'm aware there is some sort of Unitarian presence in the UK but I've never paid them much attention to be honest.

domokunrox wrote:The truth claim has nothing to do with the nature of its "roundness". The nature of that is trivial at best.

Trivial to you perhaps, I beg to differ.

The Clete Hux video you suggested highlights the issue for me, to quote him:

Every spirit, or teaching, or doctrine that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. Translation: Every teaching, every doctrine every spirit that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh is from God. Now, he says in every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God any teaching any spirit any doctrine that says that Jesus Christ is not God in the flesh is not from God and this is the spirit of the antichrist......

Not just the dismissal of anything that does not agree with one's worldview but the active demonisation of anything which does not affirm it. It's beyond me. I enjoy reading the works of the great religious teachers that have appeared throughout our history but the idea that Christian theologians, at the exclusion of all else, are in sole possession of the truth just seems indefensible to me. By this token one must dismiss the teachings of those who introduced us to the principle of contradiction.

jlay:
I think you misunderstand me. I'm not saying the principle of contradiction has no value or that one should abandon it. I'm suggesting it may not be a universal law. I use it daily and can see its practical utility in day to day life. In the same manner that whilst I do not have absolute faith in newtonian mechanics I won't be jumping off a cliff.

If I didn't know better I might think you are trying to trick me into heaven Matthew 19:21

I wouldn't go as far as to say I study philosophy but I've read a few books during my daily commute. I've not read Aquinas, I'll definitely look into him.

to deny the principle of non-contradiction one only proves it as they deny it. it results in absurdity. It is a self-evident principle. In fact I'm a little embarrassed that I missed it earlier. But concerning roundness you proved the very thing you set out to argue against. You actually refer to a truth. That roundness is. When someone draws a good circle, we know it's good or bad by how it comforms to roundness. As you pointed out, the earth is not 100% conformed. But it is certainly conformed enough that roundness best describes it being. Thus you envoke the the true essence of roundness. By saying what the earth is or isn't, you are in fact employing a method of thinking that is guirded by non-contradiction. A basketball is round as it conforms to roundness, just as a block is not round because it does not conform. Would the earth be round if no people were here? Is there any time where a cube, being a cube can at the same time be round?

By this token one must dismiss the teachings of those who introduced us to the principle of contradiction.

Swing and miss. I implore you to read and actually understand what is being covered. It is obvious you do not understand First Principles. Non-contradcition is not a theological issue. it is a self-evident reality. You don't have to be instructed in NC to apply it. You are doing it without realizing it, because it is inherently true.

I'm aware that to deny the principle is to affirm it, to say that it has limited but not absolute application is not the same thing. That it is useful but not absolute truth. I'm also aware that I have a concept of roundness, it's quite a leap for me to suggest that there is therefore a true essence of roundness. Roundness seems to me a human created ideal to which nothing can measure up to, an ideal to which things approximate. If Fonzie is cool to a high degree of what I consider cool does that prove there is a true essence of coolness?
You ask if the earth would be round if there were no people here, I don't think so as it's not round when people are here but we can really only speculate as to what would be if we were not here. If things were different to what degree would they be they be similar....

I think I have a reasonable grasp of what is actually being covered and I am reading. It's up there with the impossibility of a born again Christian renouncing the faith, to one still in the born again frame of mind it's an impossibility, to one that has been through it it was simply a distorted way of viewing things. I've only just started looking into Hegel but it seems that he obviously did not manage your level of understanding either.

*edit*

I do think, contrary to what you say, that this is a theological issue. This sort of thinking has a rather large impact on how you approach these issues. Many Muslims will dismiss the trinity and Jesus being fully God and fully human as a contradiction, Christians simply do some mental gymnastics to get around these issues. A circle cannot be square but a human can be God.

If Fonzie is cool to a high degree of what I consider cool does that prove there is a true essence of coolness?

Can you graph and measure coolness? No. But you can roundness. 3.14 Pi.
BTW, you are the one that appealed to the true essence of roundness. Not me. That said, I'm not sure how it being a human ideal makes a hill of beens difference.

I've only just started looking into Hegel but it seems that he obviously did not manage your level of understanding either.

???? Any particular part of idealism you'd like to broach? Weren't a lot of Hegel's views rooted in Aristotilean logic?

Many Muslims will dismiss the trinity and Jesus being fully God and fully human as a contradiction, Christians simply do some mental gymnastics to get around these issues. A circle cannot be square but a human can be God.

Most Muslim understanding of the trinity is distorted, thinking that Christians are claiming three seperate Gods. Just as you do. You say a human can be God. No. God can be human. Just what mental gymnastics do you refer to.