Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

The solution is to attack the first premise: that God is a necessary precondition for logic.

Yes, I've not encountered this particular idea before, although we are all surely aware of some ... far-fetched ideas coming from theists? This one is more incredible than most. That God is a necessary precondition for logic and morals? I find it difficult to describe an argument for what seems to be glaringly obvious.

I accept that what is glaringly obvious to me is not so obvious to all, but, really! No logic without God? This is not the God I venerate. Let's leave it at that.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Logic" is much better explained by the Anthropic principle.

Why "explain" logic when a description seems so much more appropriate? Logic is a tool, a mode, or style, of thought, that humans have developed, to help them (us) clarify our serious thinking. Someone else could probably describe it a little better, but that's the gist of it, surely? All else is detail.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic is inherent in human thinking, communication, we can't get outside it.

Empirical observation reveals many humans whose thoughts are rarely, if ever, disturbed by logic. This leads me to suppose that logic is by no means "inherent" in human thinking. It is a tool that some find useful, while others feel no need for it, apparently.

[Astro Cat]

Why "explain" logic when a description seems so much more appropriate? Logic is a tool, a mode, or style, of thought, that humans have developed, to help them (us) clarify our serious thinking. Someone else could probably describe it a little better, but that's the gist of it, surely? All else is detail.

Just wanted to cut in that we must be careful to distinguish logic the process from logic the thing.

When humans "do" logic, they're doing a process. But the thing that they study is external to them, they are not making it. They make the words and symbols to describe it, they write things down such as "The first law of logic is identity, which means..." and things like that. But describing logic doesn't mean humans are creating it. Similar to mathematics, humans make syntax and symbols and words to say that 1 + 1 = 2, but they don't invent that fact; they discover it.

[Atla]

Logic is inherent in human thinking, communication, we can't get outside it.

Empirical observation reveals many humans whose thoughts are rarely, if ever, disturbed by logic. This leads me to suppose that logic is by no means "inherent" in human thinking. It is a tool that some find useful, while others feel no need for it, apparently.

Agree, here I just meant human thinking and communication as used in more serious philosophical discussions. There are lots of people who have little to no ability to use use logic. And lots of people who have little to no ability to use meaning, to "understand". And I've known one who couldn't use either.

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic is inherent in human thinking, communication, we can't get outside it.

Empirical observation reveals many humans whose thoughts are rarely, if ever, disturbed by logic. This leads me to suppose that logic is by no means "inherent" in human thinking. It is a tool that some find useful, while others feel no need for it, apparently.

Agree, here I just meant human thinking and communication as used in more serious philosophical discussions. There are lots of people who have little to no ability to use use logic. And lots of people who have little to no ability to use meaning, to "understand". And I've known one who couldn't use either.

Only one?

[Atla]

Logic is inherent in human thinking, communication, we can't get outside it.

Empirical observation reveals many humans whose thoughts are rarely, if ever, disturbed by logic. This leads me to suppose that logic is by no means "inherent" in human thinking. It is a tool that some find useful, while others feel no need for it, apparently.

Agree, here I just meant human thinking and communication as used in more serious philosophical discussions. There are lots of people who have little to no ability to use use logic. And lots of people who have little to no ability to use meaning, to "understand". And I've known one who couldn't use either.

Only one?

Yeah only one (that I remember). I'm not speaking metaphorically or about percentages, I think the relevant parts of his neocortex were literally not working at all.

[snt]

I say that this is problematic, as mentioned before, because it puts the cart firmly before the horse. How could God be the foundation for anything at all without being God? In other words, doesn't it seem a necessary condition for God = God to be true before God can somehow make A = A to be true? But that is Identity: it seems as though identity is a necessary precondition for God to be God rather than the other way around!

I am not religious but the idea that God would need to be a being seems invalid. Therefore the empirical reality substantiated idea 'God = God to be true' to be a necessary condition, is not valid. God seems to precede the potential for A = A to be possible.

I recently participated in the topic Logical Limitation of the Logic which indicates that logic has a limit, which is indicative that it requires an (a priori) explanation outside the scope of reason.

I replied with the following:

... The potential for reason and logic itself would be at question and that question is equal to the question into the origin of the cosmos.

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

One would enter the field of poetry that attempts to use language to transfer insight into experience that would then need to function as an addition to supplement logical reasoning to provide it with a ground to venture beyond the limit of its own origin.

The book Tao Te Ching is written as a poem for that purpose.

The presuppositionalist might turn around and say that this is nonsense: God is a se, exists unto Himself, is not dependent on anything to exist by virtue of His aseity. But herein lies another riposte: I submit that God cannot exist a se because God is dependent on at least one thing transcendental to Himself: that which makes God, God (or limits God to being God and not from being not-God, however we want to phrase this).

Being, existing, properties, making into something are all a posteriori or empirical concepts that cannot apply to what could be indicated with the concept God.

The idea of actual infinity may provide an insight. It would require to conceptualize the idea of beginning-less. The applicability of the concept actual infinity is evident through the idea of potential (mathematical) infinity. Therefore, actual infinity is to be found at the fundament of reality.

Alvin Plantinga poses a little problem in his book, Does God Have a Nature?: we hold these two intuitions about God, that God has aseity and that God has absolute sovereignty. But these intuitions make a paradox when all that we do is we ask: could God have decided to have different properties?

The answer can't be "yes" (which would be the route where we agree with absolute sovereignty) as that also puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to have decided to have different properties "in the beginning" (and I don't mean temporally "the beginning," I just mean whatever "initial" properties God may have had) then God would have had to already have properties, such as the property of knowing what properties are possible to have, and the property of power to make it so. Put shortly, God couldn't have chosen His initial properties because the very act of choosing properties to have requires properties to already exist.

So God can't have absolute sovereignty: God's properties, at least initially, were beyond God's control, He couldn't help but to have those properties. But that means that God is relevantly dependent on something else, something transcendental to God: the thing that makes God God, and not anything else. That thing can't be God Himself (by way of the argument just above). So the presuppositionalist can no longer say that nothing is transcendental to God, because something has to be in order for God to be God in the first place.

There would be no properties or decisions within the concept actual infinity (beginning-less). Such a concept would concern the a priori potential for properties and would concern metaphysics.

Again: I am not religious myself. Using simple logic however, it is evident for me that 'good per se' must underlay reality.

Logic, or the "laws of logic," is one of those things that has to be transcendental to God. God is relevantly dependent on logic in order to be God and not the other way around. Thus God can't be the "foundation" or "source" of logic, and thus the Transcendental Argument for God fails before it ever gets off the ground.

If not an aspect that can be referenced as God (or for example TAO in China), then, what can explain the potential for logic to be possible, a potential that is evidently required in the face of the limits of logic?

[snt]

"Logic" is much better explained by the Anthropic principle.

Why "explain" logic when a description seems so much more appropriate? Logic is a tool, a mode, or style, of thought, that humans have developed, to help them (us) clarify our serious thinking. Someone else could probably describe it a little better, but that's the gist of it, surely? All else is detail.

Wouldn't it be important to venture into the potential for logic? I.e. the why of logic?

[snt]

Correction: the why of the potential of logic?

[Pattern-chaser]

Correction: the why of the potential of logic?

OK, but first, would you clarify the "potential of logic", and then we can more easily consider the "why" of it?

[Pattern-chaser]

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching.

...

If not an aspect that can be referenced as God (or for example TAO in China)...

Your mentions of Daoism are refreshing, and welcome (to me, at least). But you presumably know that the Tao is not really synonymous with God, yes?

[snt]

Correction: the why of the potential of logic?

OK, but first, would you clarify the "potential of logic", and then we can more easily consider the "why" of it?

At first it is to be considered that the 'why' question of the cosmos is evidently applicable. On the basis of that argument, any concept will involve a question into its potential for being.

As can be seen in the arguments by Space Cat the concept 'being' is taken for granted while that would neglect the 'why' question into the potential for being.

How could God be the foundation for anything at all without being God? In other words, doesn't it seem a necessary condition for God = God to be true before God can somehow make A = A to be true? But that is Identity: it seems as though identity is a necessary precondition for God to be God rather than the other way around!

In the case of logic the 'why' question into it's potential for being is of a special nature since logic concerns the production of reason and of reason it can be said that it encapsulates anything of which it can be said to posses the nature being, since without reason, those beings would remain unknown.

[snt]

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching.

...

If not an aspect that can be referenced as God (or for example TAO in China)...

Your mentions of Daoism are refreshing, and welcome (to me, at least). But you presumably know that the Tao is not really synonymous with God, yes?

I am not an expert on the subject but perhaps it would be difficult by definition the judge diverse human conceptions of aspects, especially when it concerns personal beliefs. I could imagine that for some people the idea of God would be similar to the idea of Tao, especially for people who address the concept from a philosophical or logical perspective.

Do you have a special interest in Daoism, Tao or Eastern philosophy?

[Astro Cat]

Being, existing, properties, making into something are all a posteriori or empirical concepts that cannot apply to what could be indicated with the concept God.

The idea of actual infinity may provide an insight. It would require to conceptualize the idea of beginning-less. The applicability of the concept actual infinity is evident through the idea of potential (mathematical) infinity. Therefore, actual infinity is to be found at the fundament of reality.

Sorry for cropping out large chunks of the original reply. As I found myself typing, I wanted to basically type one thing and then say "refer to that one thing" as replies on the other lines, so I decided this is simply the most poignant thing I wanted to say something in response to.

If God is not a being, then we've left the realm of theism and I'm not sure the word "God" applies. If the universe is God (for instance) then my thoughts on the matter are that the latter name is unneeded since "the universe" works fine. So my post is directed at gods-as-beings, it doesn't apply to a god that is not a being and can safely be ignored.

If existence "cannot apply" to God, then I'm not entirely sure what's even being said. Either a god exists or one does not. My post was directed at arguments with a god proposed to exist.

If properties "cannot apply" to God, then we aren't talking about anything cognizable. We might as well be talking about slithey toves gyring and gimbling in wabes.

I know this response is short, but I wasn't quite sure what else to do with it.

If we say that God is something that doesn't exist or have properties but we're still trying to say something, we're not communicating anything. We're saying "an unknowable thing is doing an unknowable thing in an unknowable way." That imparts as much communication as TV static. I dispute this notion that we can meaningfully talk about things to which existence or properties "cannot apply." That's just not talking about anything at all.