VERITOPIA Sword In Stone

Alchemy &
Natural-Law


Space & Time - The Fundamental Units

Logic Proves God?

Thesis: I propose that Logic is 'Christ', and it proves God exists. I also propose our "Old-Pagan" European ancestors worshipped Logic as the "son of God", and Truth as God, before Christianity came along, and that's what made the west great...


Logic: The Primary Mechanism in Nature. Cause and Effect

Instead of asking "is it possible to prove God by logic?", this question is "Does logic itself prove God?"

I touched on this in the page on Logos/Logic: The argument that the existence of logic proves God... But is it valid? What do you think?

I defined Logic from two perspectives:

  1. The primary mechanism by which nature operates. (Yang, external)
  2. The ability to reason, and know reality. (Yin, internal)

So I would define logic as the mechanism that created the universe, and hence the means by which we can know how the universe was created. Logic is not just in the mind of man, it's in nature. We have it so we can understand nature, and thus live in nature successfully.

Logic in nature is cause-and-effect. This is the primary mechanism of nature. If I drop a heavy weight on my foot (cause), the effect will be a sore foot 100% of the time. Logic in the mind of man is a re-presentation of the cause-and-effect that determines the natural world. Because I am able to use logic, I know not to drop heavy things on my feet.

So human-logic exists to help us survive in a reality which operates on logical principles, i.e. by cause-and-effect (Yang and Yin).

Nature Is Cause-And-Effect

Everything we observe in nature is the product of cause-and-effect (Yang & Yin). Science is the study of nature, in order to understand & explain it. Thus science is the study of cause-and-effect. Cause-and-effect is the whole of science, because it's the whole of nature. Every science paper ever written aims to describe cause-and-effect: "Do X, and Y happens."

Some people will object, saying that science now includes, or is even based-on principles of randomness. Quantum mechanics & evolution are predicated on the principles of 'random'. However, the principle of (true) randomness is fundamentally at-odds with that of knowledge...

Note there can be statistical randomness: "We can't see a pattern.", which is valid science. Or there can be 'acausality': "There is no pattern", which denies science.

Random Is The Opposite Of Science

acausal: not governed or operating by the laws of cause and effect.

If something is truly random/acausal, then it can't be known. Science can't be done on it, it's outside the scope of knowledge. Acausality is the end, and negation of science. Genuine randomness, if it existed, would defy science. It would make the universe forever unknowable, and science merely an illusion.

Acausality is the exact opposite of logic, and thus science. It's an effect without a cause, and is thus a superstition for which there is no evidence. There is no, and can never be any, evidence that any phenomena is truly random. It is unprovable, because there could always be an underlying mechanism we don't know about.

Thus, to argue against cause-and-effect, in favour of 'random', is anti-science.

"Causality is an Abstraction"

Wikipedia says "Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses". It says "Abstraction .. is a conceptual process where general rules and concepts are derived from the usage and classification of specific examples..."

So Wikipedia doesn't define causality to be a fundamental principle of reality, but as an derived-concept that merely 'indicates' what 'might' happen. It seems to be backing away from the determinism of causality, but there's no evidence that causality is not universal (& it's logically impossible to prove an absence of causality. It's 'unfalsifiable').

It used to be called the Law of Causality, I think it still should. I explain below why true 'randomness' is not a scientific concept, and should not be included in science at all.

Even before mankind existed, there were things that were NOT other things. This is logic. To have more than two things in existence is to have Logic - in some form...

If I drop that heavy weight on my foot, it'll hurt 100% of the time. Causality doesn't 'indicate', it determines.

Law Before Matter

Nature could not exist with the law of cause-and-effect, and causality is the law of logic applied to matter. Causality follows the rules of logic because they are the same thing.

The laws of physics can't exist without it. There could be no 'quantum-foam' without logic, because logic precedes math.

Matter couldn't exist without the forces that apply on it's constituent parts, and those forces follow strict laws. If they didn't there would be no matter, and no prospect of science.

So, it seems to me there is no reasonable argument against Logic/Causality being the primary mechanism of nature, which every other mechanism is bound to follow.

Logic Is A Principle

Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

Thus: Logic is a fundamental truth.

The existence of logic is a fundamental truth, and logic provides access to fundamental truth.

Logic: The "Mediator Between God & Creation", Proves God?

Logic is how the universe is made, and how we can know how it was made. Logic is the primary law of nature.

Logic had to exist before matter. Logic is not made from matter. Thus matter is not the primary substance of reality, logic is.

Logic/reason can only be done in a mind. The ability to do logic (reason) is the definition of intelligence. Thus reality must exist in an intelligent mind.

QED. Right?

Science is Discovered, Not Invented

Invent: create or design something that has not existed before.

People did not invent the universe, or logic, or maths, or science. We just popped-up here, and discovered those things. No one in their right-mind would suggest we invented physics. If we could invent physics, why not invent free-energy, or free-gold, or teleportation etc?

Physics is constrained by reality. It's a process of discovery, not invention. Likewise, we didn't invent logic, we discovered it. The capacity to reason is built into us by evolution so we can survive. It's not an 'abstraction', it's a principle. It's an abstract principle (i.e. it's not matter), but it's not an abstraction (i.e. only in the minds of men).

The law of morality is also pre-defined, and we have to discover it. We can't invent morality any more than we can physics. This was the foundation ethos of the common law (jus gentium), and is the reason why people used to have "unwritten law" & juries, because each case is different, and fixed rules can't deliver justice because they can't listen. Only humans can listen and understand other humans. Words on paper cannot do that. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

Logic: If it's a principle that everything else we can possibly conceive of, or that exists, depends on, then the universe is made of principles, and matter is too. Principles, rules, laws create reality, and they are not made of matter, they're thoughts. Thoughts can only exist in a mind.

Therefore: We exist in the mind of God.





Comments...



The site uses cookies (where available), only to remember the (optional) name you use for comments.

There's no advertising on this website.