Kant's Transcendental Argument For God: logical or not?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You don't know if alien brains elsewhere in the universe perceive the universe in a way that follows different rules of logic. Therefore, it reasons that a god that governs the entire universe may not be constrained by human logic.

Can you give me a situation in which a form of logic could exclude the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction? You are postulating it as a possibility, but I don't think it is a possibility so how are you calling that a possible world?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm talking about perception. Humans are limited in perception to things that make sense to us, but for all we know there could be ways to perceive the universe in a way drastically different than how we do which creates different rules of information.

I just think it naive to try to use earth logic to define something that exists outside the universe.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

An example is around perceptual reality and eigenstates. We only have the ability to perceive one state of reality at a time, which defines our local universe.

There may be species that don't have the ability to collapse potential states of reality to a single identity, or can perceive multiple states simultaneously. In this universal model, all possibilities can exist and be experienced concurrently which eliminates the very concept of identity or contradiction.

If this perceptual model does exist, it would be outside or further away from us than our observations can reach (edge of our local universe), since our ability to observe and define a specific reality negates the very existence of such a universe for our species specifically.

In a sense our ability or limitation to observe a single reality could be a destructive force to other species whose very substances extends through multiple eigenstates.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

No this is Kant's version

Well it's identical, but sure....

and I'll refer you to premise 2 and 3. Your question is about six which is derived from premise 2 and 3.

If logical absolutes are 'transcendent and conceptual and they must exist in a transcendent mind' how can they still be absolutes if they are subjective by being God based?

A god could choose to ignore certain absolutes could it not?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Logical Absolutes - Necessary truths that exist in all possible worlds, such as the Law of Non-contradiction and the Law of Identity.

Premise 1: Logical Absolutes exist.

No, you are in error!
Every one of Aristotle's 'laws of logic' has been refuted by quantum mechanics.
And that includes his 'non-contradiction'!

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics

Premise 2: Logical Absolutes are conceptual.

After the failure of premise one, we move to the failure of premise two.
There cannot be an 'absolute' concept!
Absolute is Universal, transcendental, 'concepts' are imagination, limited in it's duality!
No 'transcendental' (Consciousness, unconditional Love) can be 'imagined'!

Premise 3: Concepts exist in the mind, they are mental.

Finally, there is something that I agree with, obvious as it is.

Premise 4: Logical absolutes would exist even if our minds did not.

And again FAIL!
There are no 'logical absolutes'.
The closest a 'thought' comes to being 'absolute' is a strong 'belief infection'!
A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination/ego!

Premise 5: Therefore, logical absolutes are transcendent

Therefore, as always, 'absolutes' are transcendent!
Logic is not, and worse, logic is twisted and masticated beyond intelligent recognition by Faithless 'believers' to make it edible for their 'beliefs'!
Thus one symptom of a belief infection is the inhibition of cognitive and intellectual function!

Premise 6: Since logical absolutes are transcendent and conceptual they must exist in a transcendent mind.

I don't know how to say this so it would make sense to you, but there exists One Universal transcendent 'Mind/Consciousness'.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with 'logic'.

Premise 7: This transcendent mind is what we recognize as God.

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Mind =Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

I personally don't see anything logically incoherent about the logic here.

Nevertheless, it is glaring, for some.

It starts from the idea that logic exist and works to the idea that a logic is evidence for the existence of a transcendent mind.

One can make that logical argument, but you are not even in the ballpark with your 'logical' floundering.

The only thing I see one could say is that they do not believe some of the premises are logically sound. I personally think they are sound. Lets here it guys what issues do you see?

I obviously see that they are not sound.
Even a blind hog finds an acorn on occasion, and your 'conclusion' seems to be yours! *__-

There IS a 'logical' argument that is sound, but that is far from it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I am arguing that this is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Do you have any reason to believe there is a realm in which something is not itself?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

There may be species that don't have the ability to collapse potential states of reality to a single identity, or can perceive multiple states simultaneously. In this universal model, all possibilities can exist and be experienced concurrently which eliminates the very concept of identity or contradiction.

Where is this species? Nothing in our current state of knowledge dictates such a species would have to exist, so why are you postulating its existence? If the concept of identity is lost what is an electron? What is a probability cloud? These things all lose their meaning. How would you know an electron had these properties if these properties lost their identity. All possibilities can exist? I would disagree, I think it would be more proper to say all logical possibilities can exist. You are simply saying a scenario of a certain kind can exist but you are not explaining how something could not be itself. An electron is an electron. Quanta is Quanta. You can't even begin to talk about these things without logic.

a reply to: Prezbo369

If logical absolutes are 'transcendent and conceptual and they must exist in a transcendent mind' how can they still be absolutes if they are subjective by being God based?

A god could choose to ignore certain absolutes could it not?

The essence of this mind is that it is unchanging and intrinsically logical. We see the reflection of this mind's nature in reality.

a reply to: namelesss

No, you are in error!
Every one of Aristotle's 'laws of logic' has been refuted by quantum mechanics.
And that includes his 'non-contradiction'!

I am gonna need more specifics not just a vague statement.

There cannot be an 'absolute' concept!
Absolute is Universal, transcendental, 'concepts' are imagination, limited in it's duality!
No 'transcendental' (Consciousness, unconditional Love) can be 'imagined'!

I don't see how you could argue that because something is conceptual in nature that it cannot be absolute. Concepts such as numbers and logic are not imaginative. They are what they are. I don't even know what your last sentence is trying to say.

And again FAIL!
There are no 'logical absolutes'.
The closest a 'thought' comes to being 'absolute' is a strong 'belief infection'!
A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination/ego!

Earth is earth irrespective of your existence. I don't see how that doesn't seem completely obvious to you.

I don't know how to say this so it would make sense to you, but there exists One Universal transcendent 'Mind/Consciousness'.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with 'logic'.

I don't know why you think thats something I wouldn't understand. I believe everything exists virtually inside of a transcendent mind. Logic works in this world because it is a reflection of that Consciousness in nature. Induction works because the Consciousness sustains the world in line with it's desired design much like a lucid dreamer can control their dream state.

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Mind =Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Nothing about these words with equals symbols makes sense. Those are not sentences or equations that have any meaning without explanation .

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss

No, you are in error!
Every one of Aristotle's 'laws of logic' has been refuted by quantum mechanics.
And that includes his 'non-contradiction'!

I am gonna need more specifics not just a vague statement.

There was not anything vague about it.
It was very clear.
Do you really expect me to teach you about quantum mechanics here?
It's like I'm saying the earth is round and you are asking me to prove it!
The net is a great place to learn.
And then, you will understand what I'm saying about your FAILED 'logic'!
The 'logic' that only the Faithless need to imbibe, to feed the vain beliefs!

"Quantum mechanics is so profound that it genuinely changes the laws of logic. In classical logic a statement is either true or false, there's no real sense of in-between. But in quantum mechanics you can have statements or propositions encoded in wave functions that have different components, some of which are true, some of which are false. When you measure the result is indeterminate. You don't know what you are going to get. You have states, meaningful states of computation, what you can think of as states of consciousness, that simultaneously contain contradictory ideas and can work with them simultaneously. I find that concept tremendously liberating and mind expanding. The classic structures of logic are really far from adequate to do justice to what we find in the physical world." - Frank Wilczek (The Nobel Prize and After)

There cannot be an 'absolute' concept!
Absolute is Universal, transcendental, 'concepts' are imagination, limited in it's duality!
No 'transcendental' (Consciousness, unconditional Love) can be 'imagined'!

I don't see how you could argue that because something is conceptual in nature that it cannot be absolute.

Absolute = Universal, One!
Concepts/thoughts/imagination are the 'embodiment' of all limitations, 'this' not 'that', 'live' not 'death'...
They are limited by their very nature, schizophrenic, vain, by nature, and therein lies 'beliefs'! Vanity!

Concepts such as numbers and logic are not imaginative. They are what they are.

Beg pardon, but ALL mathematics/numbers, equations, theories, philosophy, identity, lide, death, time, space... ALL 'limitations' exist in the imagination!
I have never opened a rock and found a number one! It is all 'concept/imagination'!

I don't even know what your last sentence is trying to say.

It says, clearly, that the 'limitation' of the thoughts/imagination, ego, make it impossible to 'conceptualize that which is not a 'duality', the 'Absolute'!
What does your bible say about attempting to conceptualize God?
Idolatry!
You are reducing God to a limited concept!

And again FAIL!
There are no 'logical absolutes'.
The closest a 'thought' comes to being 'absolute' is a strong 'belief infection'!
A 'belief' is a pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination/ego!

Earth is earth irrespective of your existence. I don't see how that doesn't seem completely obvious to you.

I don't see the point of this bit of self-serving circularity.
What was obvious to me was that everything around me was cloudy!
It became less obvious, and vanished, when I had my cataracts removed!
Sometimes the obscuring 'mote' is just in your eye!

I don't know how to say this so it would make sense to you, but there exists One Universal transcendent 'Mind/Consciousness'.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with 'logic'.

I believe everything exists virtually inside of a transcendent mind.

And we should leave it on this note of agreement!
Thus avoiding the mire of fallacious 'beliefs' following;

"Logic works in this world because it is a reflection of that Consciousness in nature. Induction works because the Consciousness sustains the world in line with it's desired design much like a lucid dreamer can control their dream state."

Existence = the complete Universe = Nature = Reality = Consciousness = Mind =Truth = Love = 'Self!' = God = Brahman = Tao = ... etc....
ALL INCLUSIVE!!
'One'!

Nothing about these words with equals symbols makes sense. Those are not sentences or equations that have any meaning without explanation .

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
They have no 'meaning' for you because all the terms are 'absolute/transcendental, unconditional!
All 'thought is 'conditional'.
Knowledge = experience! Thus, to know, you cannot 'conceptualize/believe' but you must experience Reality to Know it!
Are your eyes deliberately closed? Are your hands over them?
If I wrote something to tweak the ego, like "you = hypocrite", are you telling me that you don't understand... blah,, blah, blah... not an 'equation'?
It most certainly IS an equation!
Open your eyes!
And you talk to me of math?
The problem is that you do not 'Know' any of the 'terms' of the equation.

All those = signs mean that they are all the same thing, the same One Omni- Self!, from differing Perspectives!

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I am arguing that this is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Do you have any reason to believe there is a realm in which something is not itself?

No, but you are talking about something that is completely undefined within the scopes of human logic. God is regularly described as unknowable to humans. So why do you think you can prove God's existence with human logic?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Your "logical absolutes" are hypothetical at best because at this time, there is no way to test the absolute nature of such logic. Being confined to one planet and one reality and all that good stuff.

Any possible world must adhere to the law of identity or the law of non-contradiction. When you start denying these laws you are gonna fall into a heap of trouble. You are claiming a world can exist in which these concepts do not hold. I don't see you backing that up with anything though. I don't see why so many people don't understand that premise 6 follows from premise 2 and 3. If those are true then premise 6 is true.

I'm not denying the laws, you are using them to "beg the question" by creating a false dichotomy. Taking a semi plausible solution and comparing it with blatantly erroneous propositions to make it look perfectly reasonable. You haven't fully explored all logical possibilities, you are looking for the most convincing case to fit a predesignated conclusion. I've said my piece, just wanted to point out the game you are playing here.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369
The essence of this mind is that it is unchanging and intrinsically logical. We see the reflection of this mind's nature in reality.

So a god is a slave to logic? It couldn't choose to change/ignore absolutes?

I'm not asking if it would, but if it could...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, but you are talking about something that is completely undefined within the scopes of human logic.

Ok so if you don't know of such a realm that is alled a hypothesis contrary to fact. Its fallacious and has no bearing on the argument.

God is regularly described as unknowable to humans. So why do you think you can prove God's existence with human logic?

I would obviously disagree. I think human beings can know certain things about the Creator of this world because certain aspects of his being are reflected in this world.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not denying the laws, you are using them to "beg the question" by creating a false dichotomy. You haven't fully explored all logical possibilities, you are looking for the most convincing case to fit a predesignated conclusion. I've said my piece, just wanted to point out the game you are playing here.

I have done no such thing. I am open to hearing other logical possibilities so far I have not been presented with any.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm not denying the laws, you are using them to "beg the question" by creating a false dichotomy. You haven't fully explored all logical possibilities, you are looking for the most convincing case to fit a predesignated conclusion. I've said my piece, just wanted to point out the game you are playing here.

I have done no such thing. I am open to hearing other logical possibilities so far I have not been presented with any.

I can't give you a convincing argument of a transcendental mind. It doesn't exist.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I would obviously disagree. I think human beings can know certain things about the Creator of this world because certain aspects of his being are reflected in this world.

Confirmation bias. CB isn't logical at all mate.

a reply to: Prezbo369

So a god is a slave to logic? It couldn't choose to change/ignore absolutes?

I'm not asking if it would, but if it could...

Well no God cannot do things that are logically impossible, such as create a square circle because a square circle cannot exist in any possible world. Logical impossibilities are as such because they cannot be.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

? are you kidding? Like You just made a statement about what you think so I did the same thing. Just because you believe that God is unknowable doesn't mean everyone does? In fact most people who actually believe in a God(which far out ways those who don't) think they are knowable so I don't see how you can say God is often described as unknowable.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I can't give you a convincing argument of a transcendental mind. It doesn't exist.

That is not even on topic....I am presenting an argument for a transcendental mind that wasn't what I was asking. I meant I am open to hearing someone give me a logically possible world that the argument fails to take into account. You said I was making a false dichotomy. I want you to show it to me.