I think logic is the god

[WayneY]

I think logic is the god, or I should say:the god is Causality. We can talk without the bible, but we can not do any thing meaningful without logic. Our thoughts are based on logic, and then civilization follow. We search the rules of world by logic, we make the rules of society by logic. Logic is a tool of some kind and the base of logic is causality, which is the base of universe, base of all rules.
And what is the god? An intelligent god is unbelievable. I consider the god as the existence. God is everything and everything is inside god. So if there is such a god, the causality might be.

[Poach]

[Monarchist]

How adorable! Spock was merely making the Jewish blessing signal, while being an adherent to pure logic. Mixed signals, Mr. Nimoy!

God is not abstract logic, in my opinion. It is perfectly obvious that He is a real being, though beyond being.

[iudas]

God is not abstract logic, in my opinion. It is perfectly obvious that He is a real being, though beyond being.

How poetic.

[Arch-hereticK]

God is not abstract logic, in my opinion. It is perfectly obvious that He is a real being, though beyond being.

So is a unicron, just because something is "obviously" real to some people doesn't mean that it exists......................logically speaking.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

God is not abstract logic, in my opinion. It is perfectly obvious that He is a real being, though beyond being.

Exactly, it is just an opinion. Not fact. Opinion.

[13lackGu4rd]

that's where you're wrong. religion enters when causality and science end. that's the reason for religion's existence and the reason for its survival. you can believe or disbelieve in whatever you want but there are some things you just can't logically explain...

[InsaneHanz]

that's where you're wrong. religion enters when causality and science end. that's the reason for religion's existence and the reason for its survival. you can believe or disbelieve in whatever you want but there are some things you just can't logically explain...

Those things cannot be explained because we lack the evidence to explain them. All things can be logically explained with the right evidence. God doesn't explain anything.

[germ14]

Those things cannot be explained because we lack the evidence to explain them. All things can be logically explained with the right evidence. God doesn't explain anything.

Yes, I hear the "Miraculous healing proves God argument" all the time, I personally believe in God, but not because of miracles.

[13lackGu4rd]

Those things cannot be explained because we lack the evidence to explain them. All things can be logically explained with the right evidence. God doesn't explain anything.

"lack evidence to explain them" heh? ok than, please explain "logically" how love works. heck, explain how Chinese Medicine works(FYI Western studies have yet to find the "logic" behind it, yet they finally acknowledge that it actually works). not to mention the subject of creation, the big bang(and other such) theories have a huge hole in them. even if it happened from some huge supernova, what put the star that exploded there in the first place? what caused it to act the way it does(physically speaking), etc?

blaming everything on "evidence" is merely ignoring all that which you don't understand and set it aside for being "myths and legends". however there are some questions, like those above, that you just can't answer, and won't be able to answer in the future no matter how advanced science will be...

[WayneY]

"lack evidence to explain them" heh? ok than, please explain "logically" how love works. heck, explain how Chinese Medicine works(FYI Western studies have yet to find the "logic" behind it, yet they finally acknowledge that it actually works). not to mention the subject of creation, the big bang(and other such) theories have a huge hole in them. even if it happened from some huge supernova, what put the star that exploded there in the first place? what caused it to act the way it does(physically speaking), etc?

blaming everything on "evidence" is merely ignoring all that which you don't understand and set it aside for being "myths and legends". however there are some questions, like those above, that you just can't answer, and won't be able to answer in the future no matter how advanced science will be...

Chinese Medicine has its own theory to explain.
It does not matter if there are many theories, even if they against each other. Every theory is logical. Yes you could easily find many holes in them, but the other part is logical by your logical judgement. Right or wrong, that is logic. A theory has mistakes because of our human's limitation. We are not able to explain many things, but we believe there will be a way to explain finally.

[13lackGu4rd]

Chinese Medicine has its own theory to explain.
It does not matter if there are many theories, even if they against each other. Every theory is logical. Yes you could easily find many holes in them, but the other part is logical by your logical judgement. Right or wrong, that is logic. A theory has mistakes because of our human's limitation. We are not able to explain many things, but we believe there will be a way to explain finally.

yes it does have it's own theory. however that theory involves abstract terms such as "chi", "ying", "yang", "the 5 phases", etc. also the connections between those terms are not really "logical" if viewed in the eyes of Westerners. also modern(Western) science still didn't find a way to scientifically prove how it works, it only acknowledges that it does work. if logic was here than there would be an explanation on how it works...

[Helm]

Our thoughts are based on logic

Not entirely, unless you're a Vulcan or an android or something.

I consider the god as the existence.

Perhaps we're the existence. Think about it if the universe contained no life (and no gods) would it really exist? Who would know about it? The upshot of this is that if you had a universe with nothing but one mouse in it that mouse would be God of that universe, the universe would cease to exist in that particular sense of mental perception once the mouse dies.

[Poach]

Perhaps we're the existence. Think about it if the universe contained no life (and no gods) would it really exist? Who would know about it? The upshot of this is that if you had a universe with nothing but one mouse in it that mouse would be God of that universe, the universe would cease to exist in that particular sense of mental perception once the mouse dies.

Ofcourse the Universe would exist. Existence and perception of it are two entirely different things, it's like the (pretty poor) attempt at philosophy idiots throw at you: "If a tree falls when no one is around, does it make a sound?", ofcourse it does. The presence of a entity capable of hearing the fall is neither here nor there, the energy conversion still takes place.

[WayneY]

Perhaps we're the existence. Think about it if the universe contained no life (and no gods) would it really exist? Who would know about it? The upshot of this is that if you had a universe with nothing but one mouse in it that mouse would be God of that universe, the universe would cease to exist in that particular sense of mental perception once the mouse dies.

This point of view may be called "idealism", which is quite different from what I learned. I do think the universe could exist without any lives. Livings only make it meaningful.
The rules of the universe exist before we find them. We FIND them but not CREATE them. We have to "find" because that is the way we understand. The Causality, one thing cause another, is eternally there, no matter we know or not.

[Helm]

This point of view may be called "idealism", which is quite different from what I learned. I do think the universe could exist without any lives. Livings only make it meaningful.
The rules of the universe exist before we find them. We FIND them but not CREATE them. We have to "find" because that is the way we understand. The Causality, one thing cause another, is eternally there, no matter we know or not.

One theory is if you were to roll a dice in a cup and didn't look at the dice that dice wouldn't have landed on any particular number it would be all six numbers at once, when you look at the dice then it becomes defined as having always been a particular number. A dice in a lifeless universe would be stuck in kind of quantum flux, as would the rest of that universe in general.

[maerd2003]

what about the paradoxes then? logic is not perfect..

[Helm]

But in what way would that post mouse universe still exist? Before you answer that question completely blank your mind of the existence of the universe in question just so you won't be perceiving of it either. The end result is that you have no question to answer.

[Poach]

But in what way would that post mouse universe still exist? Before you answer that question completely blank your mind of the existence of the universe in question just so you won't be perceiving of it either. The end result is that you have no question to answer.

There is absolutely no law of physics that states or can even remotely hint at all matter in the universe annihilating upon the death of the last biological entity.

Infact, let's go backwards. By your "theory" the Universe didn't exist until life began. So what's all this we see to show that it did infact exist for billions of years before any life began? No life = no universe as you claim is but a poor attempt at philosophy, that completely ignores everything science has to say on the matter.

Hey wait, you just started a religion!

In a way we never experience true realty only the reality our brain simulates through the senses of the human body. But that's just being technical.

Prove that the "reality" we perceive is different from this "true reality" that you claim we cannot perceive.

As for your Schrödinger's cat-esque theory, quantum physics is a messy and confusing place. I'm no professor of physics. Until we understand more about it, the theory remains merely a thought experiment, as indeed it was always stated to be.

[Helm]

There is absolutely no law of physics that states or can even remotely hint at all matter in the universe annihilating upon the death of the last biological entity.

Infact, let's go backwards. By your "theory" the Universe didn't exist until life began. So what's all this we see to show that it did infact exist for billions of years before any life began? No life = no universe as you claim is but a poor attempt at philosophy, that completely ignores everything science has to say on the matter.

Hey wait, you just started a religion!

If a tree falls in a wood next to a tape recorder then next day someone picks up and listens to the tree fall that tree did in fact make a noise, you don't actually have to be there at the time for it to count. If no-one ever hears the tree fall you can assume it would have made ripples in the air something with ears would have interpreted as sound, it would be breaking the laws of physics otherwise.

Prove that the "reality" we perceive is different from this "true reality" that you claim we cannot perceive.

Take what we percieve as sound for instance, sound is just ripples and waves in the air it doesn't really sound like anything. And light, that's just a form of radiation, it doesn't actually look like anything. That said if you walk into a wall you will still hurt yourself.