I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Edwardo Piet]

Obviously logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual

Concepts physically reside in the brain. If logic exists at all it exists as, yes a 'concept(/s)' in the brain, as a way to measure our understanding of our experience on this planet of the apparent rationality of the universe.

No, but logic needs to apply outside of our minds as a conceptual reality.

Give evidence for that please.

No, but I cannot force you, by any means, to accept something as true. That will, in the end, have to depend on your own free will.

I know of no evidence for 'free will' outside the 'compatibilist' sense, whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic. So no, it doesn't depend on my 'free will' (unless you mean in a 'compatibilist' sense), it depends on how the mechanics of the universe go and what I happen to do, not that I'm at all apathetic in attitude as a result of that belief (and that wouldn't change the fact of the matter anyway). So what I do is also down to the mechanics of the universe - where's the evidence that I'm an exception to it? - of which I'm part of, of course.

So...sorry(!) I don't accept that either. Evidence please.

EvF

[Jon Paul]

Ok JP,

What I meant by validate was that it makes people who already believe in god feel they have an intelligent reason for their belief. I would refute your beliefs by saying that morality, theology, psychology, religion, law, politics, science, economics, democracy, socialism, in fact all things relating to ways of measuring reality are in fact subjective constructs of the human mind. Yes, even science, which really only considers any conclusion as a subjective approximation of understanding reality.

But this doesn't address in any meaningful way either the orthodox TAG or the "a posteriori" version of TAG I formulated some pages ago in this thread.

Neither of those arguments deny that humans are subjective, nor do they claim humans can reach an absolute and total objective understanding of reality. What the theistic side claims, is to the contrary, that the reality of things such as truth and logic, exist and apply to the natural world as conceptual realities independently of the human recognition of it, wheras the atheistic side is led to the conclusion that they only apply to the natural world insofar as humans recognise they do (absurd).

1) Humans can't comprehend things objectively

If that is true, then that statement is not objective, and it therefore varies subjectively whether humans can comprehend objective things.

---

Concepts physically reside in the brain.

That is not what I mean with conceptual. Maybe I should say "ideal" instead, as in pertaining to idea, or maybe "epistemic", as pertaining to a knowledge, or maybe something else. I don't know. But in any case - with conceptual, I mean simply that it is not material, spatial or temporal. You cannot weigh logic, measure it, photograph it. Logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual, because it is that which applies to matter, and energy, and in time and space, e.g. the rules and patterns of their behaviour, but is not it self any of them, but yet it is real because it applies to them.

Give evidence for that please.

Read the argument as I formulated it below.

What it means? It means you have failed to substantiate your claim that "objective truth exists independently of us (..) independent of us, and independent of whether we believe in it or not", because to substantiate the claim that logic and truth exists independently of the intellectual realm, you are forced to appeal to the intellectual realm, by exactly appealing to your (as an intellect/nous/mind) own conceptual realisation of logic and truth. You have demonstrated the opposite of your claim (that logic and truth exist somehow apart from mind): namely that logic and truth are conceptual realities, that only exist insofar as intellect exists.

Does that mean that logic and truth are not real? No. It means that conceptual realisation that they do, is exactly a realisation of an actually existing reality which is conceptual, and that a conceptual reality thus applies to the natural world, is true of objects that exist in the natural world (object X exists, X is not not X, and X does not not exist). It has no implications for whether logic and truth are real or not; but for what kind of reality they are. They are known realities, thought realities, conceptual realities.

And in reality, we already knew this, by way of knowing logics fundamental transcendence of all non-intellectual parts of reality. For truth and logic cannot be weighed, cannot be measured, cannot be photographed, and are therefore not a material; and the truth and logic apply both before and now, here and there, that is, don't change based on distance in space or time, and are therefore not spatial or temporal. It is not a physical reality, in other words, it is a transcendent conceptual reality that applies to the physical reality but is not itself equal to it.

But what is the implication of this? Let's consider it. I am starting with analysing atheism, the non-affirmation of Gods existence. The realisation of the intellectually confined nature of the conceptual reality of logic and truth, leads to the nonsense conclusion, given atheism, that the truth is not true and is not a reality, and logic is not a reality, unless it is conceptually defined to be reality by a human being, for that is the only kind of intellect and mind that we actually know exists, given atheism.

The absurdity is striking: the conceptual reality of logic does not apply to the physical world unless a human mind agrees with it, has thought up logic, which would mean that it didn't apply unless and before temporal human minds existed, which would mean that the physical world necessary to produce human minds would have never pre-existed human minds in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds.

But we know, after the effect that this is not so; we know that the natural world did exist in such a manner of obeying the conceptual realities necessary to produce human minds, because human minds were produced, and we are obviously here to attest to it. This knowledge, after the effect, leads to the conclusion of a intellectual reality transcendent to temporal human existence; an eternal and subsistent intellect (mind) independent of temporal human minds (God), sufficient to produce the conceptual reality necessary to produce human minds in the natural world, by transcending the subjective conceptual realisation of any temporal intellect of the transcendent conceptual realities.

I know of no evidence for 'free will' outside the 'compatibilist' sense, (..)

All I meant was will; call it free will, call it unfree will.

[Edwardo Piet]

That is not what I mean with conceptual. With conceptual, I mean simply that it is not material, spatial or temporal. You cannot weigh logic, measure it, photograph it. Logic means the rules and laws of reality that apply to matter and energy, and in time and space, but logic is not itself matter, energy or time and space; it is itself conceptual, because it is that which applies to matter, and energy, and in time and space, e.g. the rules and patterns of their behaviour, but is not it self any of them.

You can't measure if, because as I said - it doesn't exist other than as a concept that resides in the brain, or down or paper, in computers or whatever. There's no evidence to anything further, there's nothing to measure.

It's the way we measure and understand the universe. What you are speaking of, how you are definining it, it just doesn't exist. There's no reason to believe it somehow exists immaterially. If it exists at all then it's as a tool that we use, in the brain, down on paper, in computes, physical information, etc, etc, etc.

Read the argument as I formulated it below[..............]

I've read it more than a few times now, and as I've said, your steps don't follow because these things you are saying are necessary, aren't actually necessary.

Logic doesn't have to exist other than a concept measurement. There's no reason for an 'objective mind to exist', or anything transcendent at all. A 'mind' at the beginning of the universe, yes indeed is more complex than if the universe just began with blind forces and there as no "God" at all.

And most importantly: You've still given no evidence for any of these complex things.

All I meant was will; call it free will, call it unfree will.

Well I thought there was a difference between 'free' will and 'unfree' will, that's why I responded when you specifically said Free Will, bah.

If these two antonyms don't mean any difference to you, then no wonder i'm having problems with your semantics

EvF

[Eilonnwy]

Holy shit, this thread is 37 pages long? I was going to try and read through and chime in, but I don't think I want to now.

[Dotard]

I'll give you the condensed version of Jon Paul's arguments;

Goddidit. God transcends everything. God can do anything. Goddidit. Cosmological bullocks. Goddidit.

[Eilonnwy]

I'll give you the condensed version of Jon Paul's arguments;

Goddidit. God transcends everything. God can do anything. Goddidit. Cosmological bullocks. Goddidit.

That's it. I'm convinced.

[Rhizomorph13]

Eilonnwy,

JP keeps reposting large parts of his arguments so a bunch of the posts are mostly copy paste jobs. Dotard did a nice job of capturing the essence of the argument, although I feel he should have thrown in a few epistemologies, a dash of non-contingents, oh, and ye, let us not forget ontology.

I still maintain that circular argument is circular (yes I know repetition does not an argument make, but at least I am not merely reposting paragraphs of my argument)

Rhizo

[Jon Paul]

Logic doesn't have to exist other than a concept measurement.

A conceptual measurement of what? Of how things in the real world actually are, which patterns, laws, rules they behave according to? And if not of how things in the real world actually are, then of how they are not? Obviously not, for that is not what we use logic for knowing.

So if it is a measurement, then it is one of a reality. Then it does exist as a conceptual reality, because it is in human minds simply a reflection of the rules, patterns and laws that apply in the world outside the human mind; yet, it is not itself matter, energy, space, or time, and yet it is a reality that applies to matter, energy, space and time, the real world and we comprehend this reality only as a conceptual one, and so it can only rightly be called conceptual.

There's no reason for an 'objective mind to exist', or anything transcendent at all. A 'mind' at the beginning of the universe, yes indeed is more complex than if the universe just began with blind forces and there as no "God" at all.

You would have to point out in which sense God is complex; because this doctrine of a "complex" God is categorically rejected by the orthodox Christian understanding of God

And no, God is not "a mind at the beginning of the universe". You still haven't understood transcendence. God exists, wholly transcendent to the temporal dimension, and to any temporal designation.

That God is of an intellectual nature does not make him complex. Intellection really means apprehension; and apprehension is an abstract actualisation of an either abstract or material object, however incomplete we actualise our apprehensions as human intellects. God, being pure actuality, is the apprehender and followingly actualiser of all things; his act of intellection is thus identified with his real actualisation (divine simplicity).

We must distinguish between the potential intellect, also called the passive intellect, and the active intellect, to further demonstrate and understand the differentiation between a simple (divine) and a composite/complex (human) intellect. The active intellect is that by which we apprehend the essence of something, however incompletely; when I see a dog and think, “That’s a dog,” it is the active intellect at work. The passive, also called the possible/potential intellect, is like the intellect’s memory. If I see a dog, and I’ve never seen or heard of a dog before, I apprehend it with the active intellect as some kind of animal I’ve never seen before. Gradually, as I learn about dogs, all of the things that go along with being a dog accumulate in the passive/potential intellect and become available to be apprehended by the active intellect. Then, when I see a dog I can move quickly from “this animal before me” to “Man’s best friend.” Now, Gods intellect is one which we call purely active intellect, because whatever he actively apprehends (abstractly actualises) the essence of, he does so in a manner which is itself defining for that essence; and thus, he does not need a potential intellect, like humans, to inform him with the intelligible forms achieved through sensory faculties and sensory knowledge of the already-actualised world, that he himself has actualised by apprehension.

We can see that, there could be no potential or possible intellect in him, exactly because there is nothing potential with which to inform him, apart from his own actualisation of it which thus informs it, the actuality of that essence or thing, rather than the other way around. No potential knowledge for humans isn't ultimately a result of Gods actualising apprehension. He is not a human mind; he is not intellectual in the same sense as a human is intellectual.

It is rather the human intellect which is only analogous to the divine intellect. The human intellect is a complex intellect, composed of two parts, the active and the potential intellect; just like we exist in a realm composed in complexity of potentiality and actuality. Whereas God is complete non-composite; completely simple - in a term, purely actuality, and God has only the purely active intellect, and is not informed by potential intellect as he is transcendent to time and is himself the apprehensive actualiser of all things. In other words, the human intellect falls completely short of the divine simplicity in the divine intellect, and isn't comparable beyond the remote analogy of intellect that allows us to realise this great differentiation. The human intellect has thus been developed in the universe in complexity and composition between potentiality and actuality, a teleological fact of generation (final causality/natural selection), which God has ordained, in creating humanity in his likeness, with intellect; that humanity might be as gods.

If these two antonyms don't mean any difference to you, then no wonder i'm having problems with your semantics

They do, but all I meant was that it depended upon what you will, whether will is free or not was not my point.

[omjag86]

They can exist without God, only if and only if, God is not a necessary being, which is just a restatement of whether God is necessary for the existence of the universe or not, and of course as an atheist, you presuppose that he is not:

I am Agnostic and presume no such things such as a he and a not.

The scenario of our universe described by the argument from potentiality versus actuality, exactly answers why it (impure actuality) cannot exist without God (pure actuality).

You cannot get past your belief in God with this answer. This answer is draped in hypo-thesis. It is based in the mythology of God and not one iota of factual evidence.
You argue your case for God from your left brain, chopping and sorting your case into seperate bits, while defending your arguement from your Global minded right brain. This is highly narcissistic and why you are being told your arguement is circular and going nowhere. It's equivalent to playing Dodgeball with someone who has one set of rules for when I throw the ball and a different set of rules that favor you for when you throw the ball.
Although this is very clever, it is clever in manipulation only, and really isn't helping you to evolve consciously because you are deleting and distorting all sorts of information here.
What would it mean to you to convince me that God as you know "him" exists?
If you could convince every atheist and agnostic on the planet would that be enough?
If everyone on Earth saw God exactly like you do would you feel complete then?
Would you feel seen?
Would you have inner peace?
Or maybe you believe that at that moment Our Lady Of Fatima would appear to us all?
What if you didn't need to prove God to anyone?
....Imagine
discovering that you are an ethical person because it feels good to be ethical/moral and that's enough,
Imagine that you aren't your ego-that you don't have to cling to an identity as a believer in order to feel good about being you.
Imagine when someone dies too damned soon that you don't have to repress your anger in a cloak of shame because God needed them in heaven.
Imagine the freedom of just being alive being purpose enough.
Imagine that you don't have to justify your existence on a myth based on an Egyptian Sun God from 5000 B.C.,
Who you are is just as important and insignificant without a myth, because you are the myth maker. You are the power of belief.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams." Willie Shakespeare.
OM

[Kyuuketsuki]

There is, as far as I know, no "Law of Contradiction", there is only a definition of what "contradiction" means. I accept there is a principle that can be derived from that but isn't a law.

The law of contradiction I mentioned only relatively late in the debate. Sure, there are definitions of what is truly contradictory or not, but that doesn't invalidate the law of contradiction; it invalidates perhaps some supposed self-contradictions.

Like I say there's a definition but as far as I know there is no law despite your claim that it exists ... a number of laws have been claimed to exist primarily by theists of various stripes (can't remember them but the kind of thing that often gets quoted are things like the law of first cause which doesn't exist) and it strikes me that this is just another of those oh-so-whacky philosophical bullshit laws that aren't real laws at all. Certainly I haven't been able to find a reasonably objective place that supports this supposed law ... I did find something on the "Laws Of Logic" which has a Law of Non-Contradiction but that's all.

Kyu