DukeTwicep wrote:Hm, I don't know if you're following my reasoning.
To science, there are laws of nature. These laws are the same everywhere, and every scientist would say that they can be measured everywhere, perhaps not at all times.
Carl Sagan said that aliens out there would also measure and come up with the same laws, albeit use a different language, but translated into our language they would mean the same. The concept of 1 would have to be the same to everyone, but perhaps others would have a different symbol, but the meaning and purpose of the symbol is the same. This is logic. Logic that can be found everywhere. Aliens will also argue with each other and they will probably use the same logic, maybe not all our logic, maybe less or more. Nature is bound to logic, an event follows after another, not the opposite.
If some aliens saw that some things go backwards in time and completely defies logic, then that thing would be illogical. Perhaps they would never find a logical solution for this thing, perhaps no one could get their heads around it. If it's intrinsically illogic, then no one will ever find a logical reason for it, but they wouldn't know that it's definitely illogical, they would say that we will some day find the answer.
An intrinsically logic object, almost impossibly hard to figure out, would also be considered as an unsolved question. So to the observer, both these things would seem the same.
1+1=2 is the same everywhere and to anyone, it can't be 1456. Why? Because all sentient beings would eventually have to come up with the concept of ONE and SEVERAL. Without those concepts they would not be able to go far, they would not be able to do maths, or physics, or... anything really. It wouldn't surprise me if even most animals have a concept of ONE and SEVERAL.
DukeTwicep wrote:OK, well, assuming what you say is more logical, what does that mean in a debate with someone about god being illogical and thus the bible may be true? I mean, if we say that something intrinsically illogical can exist, something that isn't even logical to itself (obviously), it's just illogical in every possible way and view. What then? Then we don't really have anything to counter with? Are we just going to say, "Well, that might be true, and it might also not be true"?
...If God is victim to laws of logic, then he must adhere to them: the ones which exist currently, ours.
If God is able to ignore and create logic, and chose to create ours, then by our logic (the only possible one in this circumstance), the laws he obeys would be ours, else why create ours?...
DukeTwicep wrote:1. In your post on the 3 possibilities you say that god created our laws because he adheres to them.a) But if he adheres to them, then they already exist and then he would have not have to create them.b) Plus, if he is adhering to our logic, then he is not illogical any more as his logic is our logic.c) Plus, is he really omnipotent if he is subject to any laws of logic?
2. Why else would he create our laws? Well maybe he had other reasons, maybe he was experimenting with different laws on different universes.
3. "If God is able to ignore and create logic...", but he's not able to change his own laws? Maybe that's perfectly fine by some alien logic to change your own laws, I don't know, I always thought there were only one logic, but by saying there may be any logic, aren't you saying that anything is possible then? And why would there then have to be only 3 possibilities, maybe there would be an unlimited number of possibilities, only understandable by other beings?
So, by our logic we can say there Might be other systems of logic, and they Might not be the same. But if someone have laws of logic governing them, they can't change them? Isn't that a biased assumption based on our understanding of our logic? Maybe they can change theirs, and it's totally OK with their system of logic. If logic can change, then wouldn't it be possible for something or someone to not have any laws of logic at all?
I'm not trying to counter your every argument like a crazed fanatic, I just don't understand it yet.
â€” 1 Corinthians 14:33God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints
DukeTwicep wrote:OK so I think I understand the first part where he creates these properties that the Bible says he has, if you mean that by giving himself these properties he is starting to create a logic that will finally be ours?
The other part, where he lives without logic, I assume that is the one you didn't write about. So, how would that be? Can he add properties to himself and create us and create our laws of logic without first creating any logic for himself?
Or perhaps I misinterpreted you and you meant that what you wrote accounts for both cases. If he lives without logic, then he creates us, he gives us a perfect logic, and that perfect logic would be his, thus he cannot have lived without logic when he created us? And this means that if he first lived in a void, he must then have created logic for himself before creating our logic. That makes sense too.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest