THERE IS NO "GOD", Ok?

I am not dismissing inductive logic at all. I am merely saying that it can be carried into the bounds of absurdity, really. I also think that inductive reasoning can come very close to the logical fallacy of "appeal to ignorance". There is a fine line here.

I think a sound deductive argument would at least be a start. I am not really sure that an inductive argument could apply here. I could be wrong, I mean it COULD apply, but again, it seems that it could come dangerously close to "argument from ignorance or appeal to ignorance" on this particular subject.

I think inductive reasoning is reliable for giving us certain information, sure. But, by using science we are using that which is natural and possibly assuming nature to be uniform in some way. Karl Popper was more along the lines of the scientific theory of negative application--rather than inductive patterning. Again, you're using most materialistic or mathematical evidence as well. I don't see how this could apply to "god" or the "supernatural" without unnecessarily multiplying entities, appealing to ignorance, or prior assumption.

I also think that it isn't necessarily "faith" I have in scientific theories, but reasoning applies here as well.

Like I said I don't discount inductive logic at all. But, I don't necessarily see how a sound inductive argument could be construed without falling into the dangerous, murky territory of fallacious logic.

 

Ahh I see. Then we are in agreement I think when it comes to inductive reasoning.

I just wanted to clarify that specific point regarding deductive arguments, that's all. I am not a fan of inductive arguments myself. I like true/false. I don't care for 90% certain that X is true. Especially if I am hanging my eternal fate (or possibly the lack thereof) on it.

I hadn't gotten that far yet. Many of your comments in the past have dwelt on the "invisible sky daddy" idea. That some immaterial conscious being exists you find to be ludicrous. The approach I am taking is to see whether one can admit that there are immaterial things that exist that can and do interact with our material world. It is still a large step to say that there is an immaterial consciousness, but, if my approach and argument is sound, then one can no longer dismiss an idea (like God, or the soul) solely because such a thing is not observable or measurable in the material world.

Not blind faith, but faith that means "trust based on evidence and past performance." Faith like that you have when you sit in a chair and trust that it will hold you. That's what I meant by faith.

And that's fair. I am not saying that I agree with you, but your position is not unreasonable.

Normally I would start trying to discuss the different arguments with you and see what you thought. But before I go there I was curious as to why you draw the lines where you do in terms of proof. How do you justify logic as a fair criterion for judging the existence (or lack thereof) of God? Why logic over subjective experience?

Do you believe in universal absolutes (like the Law of Non-contradiction)? If so, why?

 

The reason that I am not keen on using subjective experience as evidence for something objective is for several reasons. A few being:

1) Many people when faced with the necessity of making a decision or going through a specific time in one's life, allow their emotions and their preconceived notions to sway them in spite of contrary evidence or without attempting to obtain and evaluate evidence. Although feelings can be correct, it's not really something one can depend on as criteria for objective truth.

2) Subjective experiences are unreliable also because they are, too often, vague, ill-defined, variant and undependable, limited usually to the capacity of knowledge, the cultural/social definitions, and the preconceived notions of the one having the personal experience.

3) Subjective experiences are often off-setting or contradictory. Some people have experiences which directly contradict someone else's or even their own prior experience. If "subjective experience" itself could be established as criteria (in and of itself), how are we then to determine which is correct? If subjective experience is only meant for the one who experienced it, then it is subjective, not objective. However, "God" (in most belief systems) is a universal deity, thus an objective being--meaning we need objective evidence. Thus, my subjective experience of "God" may contradict at all levels your experience. If what is right for you is right and what is right for me is right, but one or both contradicts the other--then it must be subjective in order to possible avoid absurdity. For if it is objective, it is a plethora of absurdity, illogic, and irrationality. And regardless of the talking heads on here...no one actually LIVES this way.

Hope this helps.

 

It does help. Thanks!

I don't disagree with you at all.

We both put a lot of stock in logic, reasoning, and critical thinking when discussing reality. I think we are on the same page in our criterion.

But, if you would allow it, I would like to dig a little deeper into your views on logic and reality.

Logic exists necessarily. It is, by definition, non-contingent. However, what is your basis for relying on logic at all? If there is no God, then it seems that logic is a product of the human mind. Even if it is based on experience, how will it differ from subjective experience. What I mean is, humanity has a limited understanding of the universe. If the laws of logic are products of the human mind, then how can we assert with confidence (given our extremely limited understanding of the universe) that they are universally true?

If logic is not the product of the human mind, then a whole host of questions arise. What is it's origin? Was there a moment when the laws of logic did not exist? Did logic come into existence at some point or is it eternal?

Can you use logic to validate logic? If so, isn't that circular?

Can you say that it exists necessarily based on definition? If so, can you assert that God exists by definition?

Is logic self-validating?

 

Well, obviously logic is a human discovery. Some may call it a creation, but it is one method that we use to discover objective truths. Just as the "laws" of nature are a human discovery or creation, it is our method of understanding the phenomena in nature--of exploring and experimenting with nature.

Logic is a method, just as mathematics. Yet, you will find many people that will tell you that these things are absolute as well. In other words 2+2 is just another way of saying "four" and "four" is just the name that we give that number.

And the "number"...etc..etc...

Thus, I see that there is existence and conciousness and they are "eternal", so to speak, and if you want to call that "god", then I don't see any reason why you can't, but that would make "god" natural--part of the cosmos (so to speak)--the whole of existing things and thus, "his" having "created" it is highly implausible. Plus, this would be "pantheism"--not the typical theism of most organized religions' "god" definition.

So, "nature" (and if you want to call it "god", I suppose you have that right) exists and logic is merely a method of discovery. And sure it is human-discovered/created, but it is a way of explaining the way things are.

And one that works and is used by everyone whether they admit it or not.

 

I see what you are saying. Numbers, in the sense you are describing, categorize relationships of entities in nature in the same way that logic categorizes statements made about nature (into true and false categories).

Though we use the terms "logic" and "number" as terms that we invented, we are unable to deny that there is a relationship that actually exists.

Here you have me confused (which is most likely my fault ). I don't see how you draw the conclusion that there is existence and/or consciousness that is eternal.

If logic is a method of discovery, then we have developed it based on the relationships that we see (like we have developed mathematics to explain the relationships we experience in nature). If we developed it, then, while the relationships exist, can we be so certain that logic is truly universal?

If logic is an eternal reality independent of human experience, then from whence does it originate (if it originated at all)? If it originated, then is possible that there was a time, even a moment, where logic didn't exist? Was there a moment where x could equal ~x?

If you think that logic didn't originate, then have we come to the point where we agree that there is (eternally "is") an immaterial constant which underpins all reality? That there was no time when logic did not exist? That this logic cannot be directly percieved or empirically tested for proof of existence and is only conceivable via the mind? Can we reasonably deny the existence of this immaterial underpinning (i.e. can we use logic to deny logic)?

It is a way of describing relationships that actually exist in the context of statements. There is a big difference, though, between discovered and created.

By the way, I am asking these questions because I, too, want to know. I have my own theories, of course, but I am really interested in what you think. If I understand your worldview, then perhaps I can understand the conclusions you draw better.

 

The reason I mentioned the "eternal" attribute (so to speak) of existence is because, existence itself would obviously be eternal. There is no "beginning" to "existence" itself. Only beginnings of existences of certain forms of things that exist.

For instance, a flower begins to exist from a seed which begins to exist from...etc...etc. There are "beginnings" of existence of things, but existence itself has always existed and always will. Something always exists in some form, even the absence of something will leave something else.

Through science we have come to the conclusion that matter/energy cannot created or destroyed, but can only change form. Thus, it is very reasonable to believe that something, in some form always existed and evolved or devolved or changed in some form or forms throughout.

Consciousness is more apparent to me from the theory that life cannot come from non-life. Thus, either this theory is false and life can sprout from non-life (which most theists will reject immediately) or there is a degree of life in all things and it's just a matter of degree.

Again, this would allow for the eternal life of consciousness. Just a theory, but a reasonable one nevertheless.

Yes, logic is a method that use to explain what is. But, I would not go so far as to say that there is, as you call it, "an immaterial constant". No, logic is used to reason--a method to explain. It doesn't exist outside of that, just like love doesn't exist outside our subjective experience of that. Logic is a method, but it (unlike love) is used to explain OBJECTIVE reality.

Logic is not an objective "entity", but a method of explaining objective reality which is natural and material.

If you speak of relationships, and you are, you are speaking of subjective correlation to objective reality.

I don't think that an "immaterial constant" just exists by itself anymore than I think that human thoughts exist without a human brain. Thoughts (immaterial and subjective) relate to the brain (material and objective).

Thus, I cannot conclude with you that because logic (which is a method) doesn't exist outside of our development of it as a method to explain objective (and some subjective) phenomena--as an "entity" (so to speak) by itself, that we need an "immaterial constant" (a god, I suppose you are interjecting).

IF an "immaterial constant" does exist (hypothetically speaking), it cannot exist with being connected to the material. Call it existentialist, I suppose, but this is how I see it.

 

In Hinduism, there is this idea of God as Being/Consciousness/Bliss (SatChitAnanda). This idea is perfectly compatible with your statement that:

There is every reason to believe God is perfectly natural. You are free to see it any way you like.

Well, most religions are really just paths toward a more complete realization of the ultimate reality that many refer to as God. Toward this end, they create and maintain a model of this reality which, by its very nature, is always reductive. The model offers a kind of simplified, accessible explanation for the totality of Being/Consciousness/Bliss (or any other definition of God) which, at any given moment of time, is just too much an overwhelming volume of information, too much reality to fully "know."

Like every model, this one offers comfort from uncertainty, and there are many who mistake their model for the reality it maps, even when it tells them there IS no ultimate reality . . .

But, of course, all of this consciousness really does exist.

Yes. It is a recognition of this ultimate reality, of the way everything is.

Maybe the real question is this: Does the fact that the Universe creates consciousness (in the form of you and I) mean that the Universe is now, itself, conscious?

Peace and Love

 

I find that a pantheistic view of "God" is much easier to accept than the theistic "Sky Daddy" version.

Although, I don't believe that consciousness or thoughts or love exist apart from the material aspect, I believe that they are a process or agent of the material aspect.

In doing so, I believe that human individual consciousness does not exist apart from the material brain and at bodily/brain death--we cease to exist as an individual conscious being. However, I can see that the material aspect (our bodies) and consciousness go back into nature/the earth/the ether and regenerate into a different form of energy/matter.

In other words, no resurrection of the body and no reincarnation of the same individual consciousness in another being (although I couldn't entirely dismiss this--I strongly doubt it).

 

Existance would be a quality or state of something. It is the state of "is". A thing might exist or might not exist, but "is" by itself is an abstract concept. Existence is contingent on something already existing. If nothing exists, then there is no existence. So it is always the case that something other than "existence" must exist. That means that something must have always existed. Something out there *must* be eternal (since I think we both agree that something cannot come from nothing). If you say that the universe (even time itself) has always existed, then how do you explain that "ultimate equilibrium" wasn't reached an eternity ago?

Science also says that reactions in nature always strive for equilibrium. And that without external energy, a closed system will eventually gain entropy. If ultimate equilibrium is possible, then how come it wasn't reached an eternity ago? You must show how it is impossible that ultimate equilibrium is not possible.

Why do you not allow for the third possibility? Life cannot sprout from non-life, nor is there a degree of life in all things. There is an ultimate source of life that gives life to some things and not to others. Why is this less reasonable?

The system of formal logic does indeed require thought and has been developed over time by humanity. However, the fundamental laws of logic (non-contradiction and excluded middle) are non-contingent. The laws do exist outside of all human experience. We no more created them than we did when we discovered the laws of gravity, conservation of mass/energy, or thermodynamics. All these laws are immaterial. They are the guiding principles of our universe yet they have no beginning (for if they did, then we have a hard time explaining how the universe *could* exist prior to their existence). They have no form, no material substance. They are purely abstract in nature. They are a part of objective reality. And of all these, the laws of logic are completely non-contingent. You can imagine a world where the laws of physics work differently. You cannot imagine a world without the law of non-contradiction. So, when I say that there is an immaterial constant that underlies all of reality, I mean the Laws of Logic, not the human developed system.

Just because we define a relationship, doesn't mean that the actual relationship doesn't exist. The planet and I have a relationship that is defined by the law of gravity. Remove the definition, but the relationship still exists (and it isn't subjective, it is the objective relationship between objects that is the study of much of the physical sciences).

But you believe in the scientific laws, don't you? These are not material. They are only discovered by deduction based on observation.

I wasn't interjecting a god. Just a principle.

A necessary thing can exist without being connected to the material. It needs nothing but itself to exist. This is true whether the thing is material or immaterial.

 

I don't quite recall saying that the universe or time always existed. What I believe I said was the "something" always existed-- in SOME form. But, that something is not some "outside source" from the whole of existing things...some "immaterial" essence which existed before someTHING existed. In other words, no "supernatural" source, just nature and ONLY nature in SOME form of matter/mass/energy.

Because you are seeing it as if the cosmos itself has always been as is. But, the observable universe is really all we really KNOW anything about and there is no contradiction in stating that someTHING (not necessarily the universe as we know it today) always existed and always will in some FORM. You are using laws of thermodynamics in the universal system rather than acknowledging that matter/energy could exist in some FORM as science presents to us.

Why? "ultimate source of life"?? Sounds like some abstract concept to me. There is no reason to believe that life exists outside of someTHING to exist. So, is this "source" a natural thing? Or some floating immaterial "spirit" for which there is ZERO viable evidence. Again, back to answer a mystery with a mystery for which there is no reason or evidence for believing.

All these laws are simply ways we explain WHAT IS and WHAT HAPPENS in human language for human understanding. The "laws" don't float around out in some "spirit world". They are simply methods of explaining nature and the phenomena that happens in nature.

Are you trying to say that the "relationship" itself exists without things that relate? OR that the connection between things exists (in and of itself)? Such as "love"? That "love" exists objectively? As if it floats around and lands between two people when their eyes meet? Please. I don't buy that for a minute.
However if you are speaking of an ENERGY of sorts that connects between two objects (you and the planet), I don't see how this contradicts anything I've been saying.

Sure, I do. But, I don't believe that they exist in some independent realm. They are merely ways humans use to explain nature.

Ah...like what principle? And does this "principle" exist in some independent objective reality? Would "love" exist without anyone to feel it?

Evidence, please. Name one immaterial thing that EXISTS in and of itself and let's discuss it.

 

Could you define "nature" please? Do you believe that something could exist without time? That something could exist independent of all the "laws" of nature? For some thing to always exist in some form, means that there must be time (else there could be no change in form, nor change in the thing itself). If time always existed, then you still have the same problem of the universe fading to equilibrium an eternity ago (even if there was a time when the universe didn't exist before that). Furthermore, saying that "something always existed in some form" definitely requires some objective evidence, don't you think? What evidence do you have for believing that?

I do not disagree that matter/energy could exist in other forms. I am not sure that just because it "could" exist means that it "did" or "does." We can only speculate beyond out universe. Just because an idea is not contradictory doesn't make it true, or even likely.

I said nothing about an "immaterial spirit." I only questioned why you chose the dichotamy that either

1) Life came from non-life
or
2) Life is present in all things (to some degree)

when the third possibility

3) Life is/was bestowed by single source (either continually or at one specific point in the past). It follows that this life source did not originate at any point and is ever-alive but is separate from those things that are not alive.

is as equally viable a concept when determining the explanation of life in the universe.

Whether it is natural or supernatural depends on the definition of "nature." However, it is not something that you can dismiss via parsimony. What you have with the first two arguments is a false dilemma unless you reject a priori proposition 3. What is your argument for dismissing it (since you seem to have done so)?

But the phenomena still occur and follow the rules that we have discovered. You see what I am saying? That we call it something else doesn't mean that the rules don't exist. We count on the rules existing when we plan our experiments. If the rules didn't exist outside of human experience, then we could not count on them for experimentation. If the doppler effect and the red shift effect are not real phenomena that follow specific, unchanging rules, then we truly cannot rely on them for measurements.

The rules must exist objectively. Yet, they are immaterial. At best, they are immaterial qualities of a material object.

No, I am saying that the rules that guide the connection between two objects are set in the fabric of the universe. These rules guide the relationships. If they don't, then how come all relationships behave in the exact same manner? I am not saying that the relationship exists without the relating objects. I AM saying that the rules that govern those relationships must exist, but have no material component.

Even if energy connects two objects, the expression, manipulation, and existence of that energy is dependent on fundamental rules that exist in nature.

Nor do I. I DO believe that they exist immaterially in THIS realm of existence.

Love is not what we are talking about. And no, I wasn't interjecting a "principle" as objectively existing. I was interjecting the principle that our world follows rules that are built into the fabric of the universe. These rules are immaterial.

Well, energy, devoid of expression (light, heat, matter) is purely immaterial (by definition energy has no mass and takes up no space... which is the definition of immaterial). There is no "energy" particle. There are particles that convey energy, but no fundamental particle that makes up energy.

Potential energy is my favorite. It must exist (due to the law of conservation of energy) but you cannot experience it, nor can you directly measure it. You can only calculate it based on the laws of physics. The instant you become "aware" of energy, there must be particles in motion. If so, then the expression of energy you experience is not "potential energy" any more.

Also, the Law of Non-contradiction is self-evident and non-contingent. Even if there were no people available to observe it, it must be the case. Of all the "Laws" of the universe, this is the only one that underlies all others as being completely independent. It is absolutely impossible for a thing to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect.

 

Time exists. It has no physical substance of its own, it is not a physical phenomenon, and yet, it exists, in and of itself.

Space also has no physical substance of its own. Its essence, its existence, may be something more than location, or a measure of distance, or a positional relationship between "things." Space itself is something other than a physical phenomenon, and yet, it exists.

By any measure, it is a singularly difficult intellectual feat to transcend the idea of physical manifestation as the minimum requirement for existence, but not to do so is to accept an unnecessary cognative limitation. There are many who don't even know to ask why this is.

Peace and Love

 

Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changes form.

Nature is everything that exists onjectively (i.e. mass-energy).

The "laws" of nature are how we describe and explain nature. The "laws" do not exist in and of themselves as "ideas" alone--they are NATURE. However, the explanation of that nature that we discovered, we call "laws".

"Time" is relative and subjective to what is being discussed. Who was "keeping time"? Matter/Energy always existed in some form. That is science, not my opinion.

Well, now you seem to be appealing to ignorance. It "could"? Matter/Energy exists in different forms all the time--that's not really "news". The entire cosmos is mass/energy...you and I are mass/energy...everything that exists is mass/energy in various forms.

Oh, I agree. It doesn't make it "true" or "likely"? So, what is likely, then? In your opinion? If not matter/energy existing infinitely in changing forms? Do tell.

Is it? Is it an equally viable concept? We know that life exists, obviously and that it exists in that which is matter/energy. So give me an example of life that exists that is not M/E, please. Then, I would consider it an equally viable concept. Subjective thoughts and ideas do not count as they are dependent upon M/E as the objects from which they are projected.

Ok, simple. Anything that is not material/energy. This does not include "ideas" and "concepts" because these are subjective and do not exist in and of themselves.

So, give me one example why I should even consider some other definition of nature.

"Rules" and "laws" are the names we've given what IS and what HAPPENS. It's like saying we "invented math" because 2+2 = 4 exists without our experience in its own realm. No, it exists because we have discovered phenomena in nature and labeled it with our terminology in order to understand it. "Laws" and "Rules" do not objective exist outside of the human understanding, because there is nothing there to understand--what does exist is the phenomena and when we discover it we create terminology for it like "law" or "rule" or "moon" or "sun" or "gravity"...whatever. It is our way of understanding the phenomena.

A rule is just the way things ARE-- these things just exist as phenomena of nature--as a part of the energy/mass transforming process. It doesn't mean that the "rule" concept exists on some objective plane somewhere.

Do you believe in Platonic philosophy of "FORMS"? As if some "horseness" objectively and independently exists to describe a "horse" outside of the animal itself?

I think the "rules" are innate. They are a process of the phenomena through the energy which guides it. WHERE DO YOU AND I DISAGREE HERE?

I disagree. I think that Einstein would disagree with that. E=MC2 seems to equate energy and matter. I don't know how much you get into that. So, I think it is not "immaterial" (i.e. spiritual). Energy EQUALS "mass" x the velocity of light squared. Matter is simply energy which has "crystallized", so to speak. They are the same. You will have to explain further what you mean by energy being "immaterial", because in saying that it is separate from matter, you are defying Einstein's discovery. And, no offense to you, but I tend to rely on the experience of science confirming again and again Einstein's view--although David Hume may try to dismiss it through his clever philosophy of inductive arguments. But, alas, this would be contradicting science and dangerously bordering on "appeal to ignorance".

On a different note:
I see a whole lot of relying on questions rather than answers. I respect that. But, I hope your system of reliance isn't based on what I'd refer to as an "appeal to ignorance", you know, the old "universal negative"-type of fallacy.

Many things COULD happen, but what is more likely? That some immaterial spirit "being" created and manages all of nature or that nature is alive to some degree itself and is eternal--thus relying more on what we have discovered through science, thus far?

So, give me your spill. You've heard mine. I mean we could go in circles forever debating why this and that (and I enjoy it), but what you don't seem to understand is that I don't claim to KNOW these things like religion claims. I can say "I don't know", but that leaves it "unexplained" and nothing more. Religion (especially orthodox Christianity) claims much more than that. Religion does not have the flexibility of science in these areas--it has to manipulate every new discovery into its little box.


So, if you have ANY evidence other than offering questions and mysteries, I'd love to hear it!

 

Time is our measurement of subjective experiences. Time is relative. "Time" does not exist in and of itself.

Space, if you are speaking of the absence of something filling it, is not "immaterial". Space is made up of "air"--which is made up of matter/energy and not just a "nothingness". "Nothingness" does not exist.

On the whole, matter/energy EXISTS and that is all that there is. Anything else is subjective or relative to matter/energy.