I think PCs point is that a God who could contradict the laws of logic has himself contradictory properties and hence cannot exist. This does not have any implications, however, about a God who could not contradict the laws of logic.
Correction : can have contradictory properties. Perhaps he can be illogical, but doesn’t desire to.
But if uncaused causers are illogical and the universe can’t be and an uncaused causer is required to start a universe, then God (as defined) is needed as an explanation.
We’ve been through this bad argument before. “God” doesn’t add anything to the explanation.
Have we?
As I thought I explained God does add an explanation if you believe:
1) The universe must be logical
2) Uncaused causers are illogical
3) an uncaused causer is necessary to start a universe.
What I’m trying to get at is that I think some people believe in a creator God because it would take something they considered to be illogical, an uncaused causer, to start the universe.
If we believe nothing inside the universe can be illogical and believe an uncaused causer is illogical, that gives reason to believe in God. God being defined as an uncaused causer outside of space and time.
I think this is a case in which perhaps the standard atheist argument is wrong. That argument is that if God can cause himself to be himself, then why can’t the universe cause itself to be itself and so God doesn’t help explain the universe’s existence.
But if uncaused causers are illogical and the universe can’t be and an uncaused causer is required to start a universe, then God (as defined) is needed as an explanation.
Stephen
“Universe” is not an entity. So it can be an uncaused causer. Just like “space” and “time” can exist forever, and be uncaused causes. The universe is like that.
God is supposed to be an entity, so it is much harder to explain how he can exist.
Besides, I have never heard an atheist argument that says “An uncaused causer can’t exist, so god can’t exist”. The standard atheist argument is to poke fun at the “first cause” argument. (Everything must have a cause. The universe must have a cause. God is its cause. And then, forgetting that according to this logic, god also has a cause… Another god? Or perhaps another universe )
But if uncaused causers are illogical and the universe can’t be and an uncaused causer is required to start a universe, then God (as defined) is needed as an explanation.
We’ve been through this bad argument before. “God” doesn’t add anything to the explanation.
Have we?
As I thought I explained God does add an explanation if you believe:
1) The universe must be logical
2) Uncaused causers are illogical
3) an uncaused causer is necessary to start a universe.
You need the additional premise that God is an uncaused causer. But this additional premise is contradicted by (2), so the argument fails.
[NB: I take your (2) to be saying something like “uncaused causers are impossible”, since “illogical” isn’t a precise term.]
Doesn’t matter. Assuming that there is some _god_ that created logic, we are talking about his nature. The others are not important in this context.
I was just trying to point out, in a playful manner, that without more of a definition of god than he created logic, there’s not much more to talk about. As an atheist, I didn’t feel the need to fill in more details or make certain assumptions for your scenario.
I think PCs point is that a God who could contradict the laws of logic has himself contradictory properties and hence cannot exist. This does not have any implications, however, about a God who could not contradict the laws of logic.
Correction : can have contradictory properties. Perhaps he can be illogical, but doesn’t desire to.
But how could we tell the difference? Shall we completely draw him into our logic universe with only the exception of having created the thing? What else could we say about the part outside of the universe of logic?
[ Edited: 14 January 2009 11:35 AM by the PC apeman ]
If logic isn’t necessary, then ndsjhsdg12@@/;+;\483hskddhj???xndjdhdjem.
Actually, there is nothing about the axioms of logic that talks about _meaning_. Whether you are speaking sense, or nonsense is not a question of logic (using the strict meaning of it)
If logic isn’t necessary, then ndsjhsdg12@@/;+;\483hskddhj???xndjdhdjem.
Actually, there is nothing about the axioms of logic that talks about _meaning_. Whether you are speaking sense, or nonsense is not a question of logic (using the strict meaning of it)
aslfk2
I’m saying that once logic leaves the picture, nothing can be processed (for discussion or anything else). It would result in pure chaos and there’s nothing to talk about.
“God created logic, so he can do illogical things. (Like preparing a breakfast too big for him to eat, and still be omniscient) ” ?
What if logic did not need to be created and God does not have the option of being illogical?
His logic may involve information and understanding that we don’t have.
Can a person that has just learned how the pieces move understand the logic of the chess moves between two grand masters? Regardless of whether or not there is a God arguments about him/her/it are not very logical because they are just built on the cultural assumptions about the gods characteristics. What if they are wrong?
How would a metaphysical system built on reincarnation affect all of the arguments about God in Western culture?
I’m saying that once logic leaves the picture, nothing can be processed (for discussion or anything else). It would result in pure chaos and there’s nothing to talk about.
)
