We can know God if he is interventionist, but as he takes no part in society we cannot know him/her/It. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't. Most fairytales are logical if you grant that fairies exist. If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties. What kind of logic would that be? The universe MUST have had a creator is a logical assumption? Only on that basis can you grant anything about a living god. If I have to grant anything then that means it is my judgement. Judgement decides if I grant a truth or not. Any science fiction story is true by that logic. That is if you grant that God exists AND is a motivated intelligence and cares what you think. You among everything else in the universe. Humans are also not subject to what we consider good or bad. Symbiotic relationships are only voluntary actions designed for mutual survival. But humans are one of the few species that kills it's own. The Black Widow is another. But then she eats the male to provide protein for the gestation of the unborn. Humans practised cannibalism until faily recently. The intent there was to inherit the spirit of the dead person. All that is a result of belief in spirits. I'll kill you and eat your spirit. Now we must grant several things (among many more). We must also grant that God is not only omnipotent but is also intelligent and independent of physical laws. Logic is becoming more fuzzy, the more you analyze what we must grant for a god to exist. In fact we must grant everything about God for God to become a logical object at all. There is no evidence of such need. Correct, but ants do exist and have been a successful species for billions of years. They don't believe or rely on God to live and survive natural selection. Which proves that all living things can exist without needing to grant that existence requires a God. What requires a God to exist? There is not a shred of evidence that God exists and there is no compelling reason why I should grant that He (granting He is male) exists or needs to exist for the universe to have evolved from a singularity. Singularities are not smart or motivated. They are powerful and that's the only requirement for creation, convertible energy = potential! What is intelligent about E = Mc^2 On the evidence we can grant that current reality is the result of 13 billion years of evolution and natural selection of that which was mathematically implicated in the chaos of pure potential. If we start granting , why not begin with granting that which is in fact logical. From everything we know about the universe, an intelligent motivated God is not a logical assumption. However, an inherent non-intelligent logical (mathematical) function is abundantly represented in the expressed properties and potentials of universal energy and matter. The intelligent part is the obstacle. Intelligent? How? Quasi-intelligent is possible. But quasi-intelligence is not motivated, it merely works in a mathematical manner. Neither good nor bad. That would be a realistic assumption when granting creative powers to an non-sentient condition. IMO, the only possible logical assumption is that the "whole of the universe is greater than the sum of it's parts" Similar to the concept that a "sentient brain" is an expression of a sum being greater than the parts. But then, if God is the sum of the Wholeness, then who created the parts? And we must make more assumptions. And we are forced to start all over again.
Natural selection states that a biological entity must survive to procreational age to pass on it's genes. Donkeys are infertile!
Donkeys are fertile. The problem occurs with cross-breeding. Moreover, not all "hinnies" or "mules" are sterile. However, its a mathematical problem. It has nothing to do with god, but with chromosome count. We discovered that we could cross-breed horses with donkeys or vice versa and create a more versatile pack animal than either donkey or horse alone. But in doing so the chromosome count becomes disordered and non-functional. But the utility of mules far outstrips the mating problem, which humans can control. Does this make humans equal to god? If you assign creation to God, then the human creation of an otherwise highly improbable hybrid would elevate us to the level of a God, no? If not, then evolution and natural selection (creation) is nothing mysterious at all. It's just mathematical. IMO, the assumption of a creative God rests with the law of "necessity and sufficiency", and in view that mathematics alone are sufficient to satisfy that axiom then a god is not necessary for existence.
This is false. What we are talking about here is internally consistent logic. It does not require the thing to be true in order to be logical. That's what premises are. If three line segments in a plane intersect, then their angles will add up to 180 degrees. If we were able to create an Einstein-Rosen bridge, then we would also have made a time machine. If Yoda could lift an X-wing then he should be able to lift a landspeeder. If God created the universe and everything in it, then good an evil are also his creation (since they are part of the universe), and there is no higher rule to which he must abide. All of the above are logical and valid conclusions, whether or not the premises are granted as true.
No, but they must be logical to be true....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Therein lies the problem. God is an illogical concept, IMO. Unless you want to end up with a circular argument, which can be very logical, but not valid.
That doesn't negate what I said though. Nor does it help your assertion: "If you suspect god does not exist, then you cannot grant any of its properties." which is still false. Concepts and systems can be logically consistent whether or not they are extant. I would argue this. QM and spooky action are not logical, but they are true.
Yes. God is good. I can't recommend for someone else to view God in this way, but I think God is good. More than good.
But they cannot be extant without being logical. Why do you assume these concept to be illogical? If we grant that all universal phenomena must be logical in essence, then it must be a human shortcoming that we cannot identify the logic contained in the function, no? Seems to me QM is perfectly logical, if only as a probabilistic event. Quantum theory is pretty solid, AFAIK. Seems to me Entanglement is a perfectly logical state, if as yet unexplainable. But David Bohm already offered a logical explanation of an interconnected Universal Wholeness. A form of Hologram where each part contains all the information of whole. http://dbohm.com/david-bohm-holoflux-holomovement.html
95% of all living things that have ever existed are now extinct. Everything we see is a result of evolution (change) and natural selection (of greatest survival ability). This is the very definition of Life. The constant unfolding of new and more efficient patterns adapted to a specific environment. "Elan vital" turned out to be a purely probabilistic mathematical function.
...also there are drone ants and bees: only the queen reproduces. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
After mating with the strongest drone! Then bee-drones are kicked out of the hive and left to die because they cannot feed themselves.
Well... You are begging the question. If you start with the premise that it must be logical to exist, then you reach a foregone conclusion. Logic itself is a human process; we come up with the ifs and thens. And right now, our thens do not follow from our ifs. I grant that they will some day be explainable, and therefore the logic will become apparent, but for now, they do not follow any logic we understand. If it's as yet unexplainable, then we can't know if it's logical.
About what? That there are phenomena which don't seem to be logical? Then lets find out why, instead of proposing that they don't need to be logical because they might be willed by a force which lies outside the universe and utterly beyond any observation forever? That would not get us anywhere definitive ever. I vote for mathematical determinism (logic) everywhere. This is true, but every observation is symbolized by humans. And this apparent obstacle is present only in a few very very small or very very large phenomena. That does not invalidate the observation, it just makes our observations inadequate for the task. Every time we provide proof by observation and experiment, we are doing something right, IMO. Moreover, if/then is our definition of determinism. Thus if we discard if/then, we are discarding the notion of determinism and that would invalidate any and all observations I am not ready to concede that in favor of an even more exotic causality. I agree and it would be unreasonable to expect us to know how everything works in the entire universe from quantum to supernovae in the short period we have had to study this inconceivably large object. There are areas which we have not been able to study in depth yet, although we are beginning to find the many different ways universal information can be shared and be causal to consistent effects. At levels above quantum logic seems very much the norm. That should be an important indicator. I agree human knowledge is still very much incomplete. But everything we can explain exhibits a logical principle. I submit that everything needs to be logical, else it cannot be a naturally recurring phenomenon. Illogical phenomena have no pattern and could not be observed at all as a recurring value or function, IMO. p.s. IMO, Logic is a good phenomenon. Illogic is always a confusing if not a bad phenomenon. What would be better, a logical God or an illogical God? And can an illogical God exist if not given logical properties? Is Creation an illogical act?
Therefore WE have everything while it has nothing. God lived in the dark: it could not see because no-one could see it. It means God existed before anyone (or anything) else. It created all things. So, some drones do not reproduce!
I thought God saw "that it was good" He must have had satisfaction, no? Wrong. God does not need light, physical living things do. Why? Reproduction relies on compatible sets of chromosomes. It is one of the rules of natural selection of mutated chromosomes. Mutation usually involves a very small change, but occasionally a major mutation may be the start of a new species. The Human chromosome 2 may be such a mutative gene. Note: it is now the second largest chromosome in human DNA i.e. the human chromosome Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm IMO, this mutation is related to speech and allowed for the building of a larger brain and the emergence of Homo Sapiens
So you don't believe in the flood so you think everyone else that does is stupid. I wouldn't want to have a pint with a fool like you.
