International creationism

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by loinburger


The proof shows that logic is necessarily self-referential -- it is entirely man-made in that it is impossible to ground it outside of human language/reason. There is no tangible thing that mankind can point to and say "See, here, this proves that our system of logic is perfect and exists independently of mankind" without being self-referential, hence logic isn't "natural." It's similar to the argument I use against "natural" rights -- there is no concept of property (or liberty or whatever have you) that is independent of language/society (how can property/liberty/etc. exist if there is only one person in the world?), just as there is no concept of logic that is independent of language/human reason.

It may be a human construct, but ultimately it exists due to natural laws and is based upon them. Concepts of human rights are created by the way we think and how we evolved. Logic is another product of a natural creation.

If you require humans to have logic, and you require nature to have humans, then you require nature to have logic. Its only logical.

[Lincoln]

Thats why natural rights have no basis if there is no God. Hence the referrence to God in the Decaration of Independence and the writings of John Locke etc.. In fact a lot of things that we tend to take for granted disappear if there is no God.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
It may be a human construct, but ultimately it exists due to natural laws and is based upon them.

That's where Godel's proof comes in to play -- he proves that there is no tangible grounding of logic that is not self-referential (i.e. independent of humanity).

Concepts of human rights are created by the way we think and how we evolved. Logic is another product of a natural creation.

There's no tangible grounding of human rights that is indepenent of humanity, just as there's no tangible grounding of logic that is independent of humanity. They're both entirely dependent upon human language, and without humans (or some similarly intelligent species) there isn't human language. There is no tangible evidence for some universal force called "property rights" floating around, just as there is no tangible evidence for some universal force called "the distributive property."

If you require humans to have logic, and you require nature to have humans, then you require nature to have logic. Its only logical.

I don't require nature to have humans -- nature has produced humans, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that it intended to produce humans. Our existence might just be a happy coincidence.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Thats why natural rights have no basis if there is no God. Hence the referrence to God in the Decaration of Independence and the writings of John Locke etc.. In fact a lot of things that we tend to take for granted disappear if there is no God.

Just as logic is not negated by virtue of the fact that it isn't "natural," and just as human language is not negated by the fact that it isn't "natural," human rights are also not negated by virtue of the fact that they aren't "natural."

[Lincoln]

Reality exists as it is regardless of what we think is "negated".

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by loinburger
I don't require nature to have humans -- nature has produced humans, but I don't see any evidence to suggest that it intended to produce humans. Our existence might just be a happy coincidence.

I think you have misinterpreted. I never said nature intended to make humans, but that humans exist because of nature. You can't have humans without (as in outside of) nature. If the universe did not exist, humans would not exist. That is what I am saying. And as you have said that logic is not possible without humans I am saying that logic is therefore not possible without nature.

At any rate, if logic is purely human then it puts an interesting spin on UR's paradox - that an omnipotent being can not logically exist. Remove humans then you remove logic, remove logic and you remove the paradox. So the act of making humans made God disappear in a puff of logic.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Reality exists as it is regardless of what we think is "negated".

What do you mean?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
I think you have misinterpreted. I never said nature intended to make humans, but that humans exist because of nature. You can't have humans without (as in outside of) nature. If the universe did not exist, humans would not exist. That is what I am saying. And as you have said that logic is not possible without humans I am saying that logic is therefore not possible without nature.

I agree, I think that it's pretty safe to assume that humans wouldn't exist if there were no universe, and so logic wouldn't exist without a universe, so in this sense logic is natural. Usually when the term "natural" is used in this context it's intended to mean "independent of mankind" or perhaps "independent of human society" (like in "natural" rights), which is how I thought that you were using it.

At any rate, if logic is purely human then it puts an interesting spin on UR's paradox - that an omnipotent being can not logically exist. Remove humans then you remove logic, remove logic and you remove the paradox. So the act of making humans made God disappear in a puff of logic.

I remember seeing this (or something similar) somewhere before. Was this from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?

[Boris Godunov]

"The Babel fish, is small, yellow, and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it.It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish. Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo´s kidneys, but that didn´t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, Well That about Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

[Dauphin]

Yes it was the Hithhikers guide. The puff of logic was around the presence of the Babel fish and God revealing/not revealing himself to the world.

[Boris Godunov]

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by loinburger


What do you mean?

Who knows. It was getting late when I posted that. Anyway I think that reality is not subject to any system of logic. I think therefore I am?? Maybe if I didn't think I wouldn't be?? No wonder some people don't seem to make an impact in this world...