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

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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.

Logical impossibilities like being your own self-contained cause and effect?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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.

Ah I was under the impression theists believed their god created logic and was all powerful.

I guess this god has limits then? and it is a slave to logic?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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.

So define god scientifically and logically.

a reply to: namelesss

There was not anything vague about it.
It was very clear.
Do you really expect me to teach you about quantum mechanics here?

If you are claiming that it breaks down the laws of logic then yes you need to show that I am not just going to accept it because my limited knowledge of quantum relativity seems to still use these laws. Wilczek is not a philosopher nor did he give any reasons to for the reader to believe what he was saying was true.

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!

The definition of a concept is something that is conceived in the mind. The nature of being conceived in the mind does not take away the ability for something to be necessary and absolute. It simply requires a paradigm shift for those who are not comfortable with the idea.

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'!

You are right ones are not inside of a rock, but that rock does have what Plato would call 'oneness' about it. How can you make the statement there is one consciousness without the ability to see its 'oneness'?

What does your bible say about attempting to conceptualize God?
Idolatry!
You are reducing God to a limited concept!

I've done no such thing and I think you should quote the verse.

I don't see the point of this bit of self-serving circularity.

It is to show you that the operation of logic in this universe is not contingent upon your existence. In fact its not even dependent upon this world. To have nothing, nothing must be nothing, otherwise we could say nothing is something.

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

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

Sure some of those I agree with. But existence doesn't necessarily mean within this universe in my opinion. Again I will give you number concepts. Number concepts do not exist in this physical universe. They are necessary in all possible worlds. To say God is Brahman and God is Jesus are contradictions. Nature does not encapsulate all of reality. Physical reality does not encapsulate consciousness.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So define god scientifically and logically.

God is not a mechanism. I can't describe how he works to you like I could describe the way a cell functions. The same way you cannot describe my personhood in scientific terms. Thats a form of hard reductionism that I don't agree with. Logically God would be defined as the greatest possible being.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So define god scientifically and logically.

God is not a mechanism. I can't describe how he works to you like I could describe the way a cell functions. The same way you cannot describe my personhood in scientific terms. Thats a form of hard reductionism that I don't agree with. Logically God would be defined as the greatest possible being.

Then how do you know that god is constrained by logic?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So define god scientifically and logically.

God is not a mechanism. I can't describe how he works to you like I could describe the way a cell functions. The same way you cannot describe my personhood in scientific terms. Thats a form of hard reductionism that I don't agree with. Logically God would be defined as the greatest possible being.

That definition is worthless because it hinges on your personal appreciatín as a qualifier. But thats the best part, right?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Ah I was under the impression theists believed their god created logic and was all powerful.

I guess this god has limits then? and it is a slave to logic?

No logic is a refection of the nature of God. It isn't that he is a slave. Its that logical impossibilities cannot happen. Omnipotence doesn't mean you can make a square circle or that it can create a rock more powerful than all power. These are logical impossibilities. It means anything that can logically happen you can do. Logic is rooted in the very essence of God's personhood. If the being we are talking about is not perfectly logical then we have quite talking about the same being which means we aren't talking about God.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then how do you know that god is constrained by logic?

It is better to be rational than irrational. If God is the greatest possible being he has the maximum extent of those properties which it is better to have than not to have. God has the highest possible degree of rationality. Our world reflects that in it. This reflection of his mind's essence in the creation is what we call logic. He is not constrained by logic, it is part of his being. That is totally different.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

What makes you so sure you can say this for a fact? You are making quite a few assumptions here.

a reply to: TzarChasm

He asked for my definition that it is. if you are asking what I mean by great that would be derived from great making properties. Great Making properties are those properties that it is better to have than not to have. As the greatest possible being God would have those properties to the highest possible extent.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes you so sure you can say this for a fact? You are making quite a few assumptions here.

Are you arguing its better to be irrational rather than rational?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Then how do you know that god is constrained by logic?

It is better to be rational than irrational. If God is the greatest possible being he has the maximum extent of those properties which it is better to have than not to have. God has the highest possible degree of rationality. Our world reflects that in it. This reflection of his mind's essence in the creation is what we call logic. He is not constrained by logic, it is part of his being. That is totally different.

"Greatest possible being" is just another way to say "the most awesome superhero I can imagine". You exhibit a boring imagination and a lazy intellect concerning the subject matter. But its not like theology gives you a lot to work with, so you have my sympathies.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What makes you so sure you can say this for a fact? You are making quite a few assumptions here.

Are you arguing its better to be irrational rather than rational?

No, I'm trying to think outside the box and not constrain myself with human ideas. You are trying to prove the existence of something that isn't defined within science or logic with logical reasoning. It just doesn't make sense. Not to mention, god HAS to exist outside the universe (how else could god have made the universe otherwise?), so how do we know that laws of logic within our universe apply outside our universe?

Most of your logical reasoning is based on assumptions you've given yourself.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No its my definition of God and rather than explain why you think it's illogical you simply want to dismiss the idea as silly.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

so how do we know that laws of logic within our universe apply outside our universe

The laws of logic are not dependent upon this universe. Something is itself is always true no matter what scenario you come up with. Again to postulate the idea would be a hypothesis contrary to fact it holds no value. i just explained to you why God cannot be described in scientific terms. You are trying to force an answer from the view of a reductionist and that is not my view of the world nor do I think it is a rational view of the world. I gave you my definition of God. There is nothing illogical about the definition the only thing we could possibly disagree on is what makes something great. So I'll ask again is it better to be rational or irrational?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t

so how do we know that laws of logic within our universe apply outside our universe

The laws of logic are not dependent upon this universe.

They aren't? How do you know this is true?

Something is itself is always true no matter what scenario you come up with. Again to postulate the idea would be a hypothesis contrary to fact it holds no value. i just explained to you why God cannot be described in scientific terms. You are trying to force an answer from the view of a reductionist and that is not my view of the world nor do I think it is a rational view of the world. I gave you my definition of God. There is nothing illogical about the definition the only thing we could possibly disagree on is what makes something great. So I'll ask again is it better to be rational or irrational?

Yea I know what you are doing, but you aren't being logical. You are just trying to use logic to confirm your biases.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They aren't? How do you know this is true?

Because if they were you would be able to have nothing and something at the same time. You could say another world exists but it doesn't. Without logic there is no knowledge. If this universe was not, and logic was contingent upon this universe the moment our universe ceased to exists logic would cease to exists which means all things become fair game. If this universe didn't exist would the concept of a square circle be possible?

Yea I know what you are doing, but you aren't being logical. You are just trying to use logic to confirm your biases.

I've done no such thing. If my logic is valid and sound there is no reason for you to say it is confirmation bias. If it isn't valid or it isn't sound then show me thru conversation. Claiming confirmation bias doesn't make it so.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Because if they were you would be able to have nothing and something at the same time. You could say another world exists but it doesn't. Without logic there is no knowledge. If this universe was not, and logic was contingent upon this universe the moment our universe ceased to exists logic would cease to exists which means all things become fair game. If this universe didn't exist would the concept of a square circle be possible?

This doesn't make any sense, nor does it explain why you know how things work outside of our universe.

I've done no such thing. If my logic is valid and sound there is no reason for you to say it is confirmation bias. If it isn't valid or it isn't sound then show me thru conversation. Claiming confirmation bias doesn't make it so.

I HAVE been showing you. You just dismiss it all without considering any of my points as logically sound rebuttals what you are saying though (likely because if you consider them as possible they poke holes in what you are saying). I like logic just as much as the next guy. Heck, I'm pretty sure I use it more than most on these forums, but I also know to recognize the limits of logic. You cannot use logic to prove something that we aren't even sure if it behaves according to the rules of logic, has no definition, and likely exists outside of the universe.

It's like you are trying to use a toaster to bake a cake.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This doesn't make any sense, nor does it explain why you know how things work outside of our universe.

So you are saying if our universe didn't exist you could have nothing and something at the same time? That doesn't make any sense what I am saying is completely coherent.

I HAVE been showing you. You just dismiss it all without considering any of my points as logically sound rebuttals what you are saying though (likely because if you consider them as possible they poke holes in what you are saying). I like logic just as much as the next guy. Heck, I'm pretty sure I use it more than most on these forums, but I also know to recognize the limits of logic. You cannot use logic to prove something that we aren't even sure if it behaves according to the rules of logic, has no definition, and likely exists outside of the universe.

I haven't just dismissed them. i have told you why I have problems with what you have said. i didn't simply say they weren't logical I gave my reasons for believing so. You don't seem to realize the world of nonsense you fall into when you say the law of identity or the law of noncontradiction cease to reamin true.