Did God Create Logic?

[Guest Valk0010]

If god has always existed, did he form his own mind, how did he create himself?

 

How did he create how his brain works? Did he create logic?

 

If he didn't create logic, then what did? Something would have had to make logic, as accurate and correct as it seems. And since ideas and laws aren't sentient, something had to make it as it is.

 

Thoughts?

[florduh]

We created rules of logic as a method to lead our thinking to correct conclusions.

[Ouroboros]

I believe logic is inherited and innate in nature. We can't escape logic, and neither can God. So the nature of logic, math, and other fundamental laws just exist and any potential God would be dependent on it.

 

Interesting to see that we can have completely different views on this board.

[BrotherJosh]

One of the things I always wondered about, knowledge and wisdom are gained through trail and error. We are able to weigh different options and seek out what we might consider to be the best choice. If God is omniscient, did he have to go through a period of gaining knowledge? Was there a trail and error period for him? Seems to me if God is omniscient he is not (strictly speaking) able to "make" a decision, he is a robot of his own prescience.

 

But most Christians will say logic is derived from God because it seeks out truth and God is the ultimate truth. Or that logic can only take you so far, because at that point we need to take a leap of faith.

[Guest Valk0010]

We created rules of logic as a method to lead our thinking to correct conclusions.

I find my views are essentially this.

 

 

I believe logic is inherited and innate in nature. We can't escape logic, and neither can God. So the nature of logic, math, and other fundamental laws just exist and any potential God would be dependent on it.

 

Interesting to see that we can have completely different views on this board.

But would you say then any potential god, that is at the very least monotheistic, only has more power then anyone else, not all the power.

And also, would you say moral law, follows the same principle or that it developed?

 

One of the things I always wondered about, knowledge and wisdom are gained through trail and error. We are able to weigh different options and seek out what we might consider to be the best choice. If God is omniscient, did he have to go through a period of gaining knowledge? Was there a trail and error period for him? Seems to me if God is omniscient he is not (strictly speaking) able to "make" a decision, he is a robot of his own prescience.

Ditto

[Ouroboros]

 

I believe logic is inherited and innate in nature. We can't escape logic, and neither can God. So the nature of logic, math, and other fundamental laws just exist and any potential God would be dependent on it.

 

Interesting to see that we can have completely different views on this board.

But would you say then any potential god, that is at the very least monotheistic, only has more power then anyone else, not all the power.

Anyone else who? Us? Other gods?

 

I dont believe there is any God, but if there was one, he would not be a creator of logic.

 

And also, would you say moral law, follows the same principle or that it developed?

Yes and no. It is too complex to definitely say it is only either or.

 

Is 1+1=2 a fact that is true in any potential universe or did we make up that identity?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

Anyone else who? Us? Other gods?

 

I dont believe there is any God, but if there was one, he would not be a creator of logic.

I phrased the question oddily I apologize.

 

 

Yes and no. It is too complex to definitely say it is only either or.

ahhh okay

 

 

Is 1+1=2 a fact that is true in any potential universe or did we make up that identity?

I will have to think about that.

[Legion]

"All the objects of human reason or enquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, Relations of Ideas, and Matters of fact. Of the first kind are the sciences of Geometry, Algebra, and Arithmetic ... [which are] discoverable by the mere operation of thought ... Matters of fact, which are the second object of human reason, are not ascertained in the same manner; nor is our evidence of their truth, however great, of a like nature with the foregoing." - David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

 

Languages carry their inferences and nature adheres to necessity.

[seeboh]

If god has always existed, did he form his own mind, how did he create himself?

 

If god always existed, then by definition he wasn't created.

 

How did he create how his brain works?

 

God probably wouldn't have a brain if he existed.

 

Did he create logic? If he didn't create logic, then what did? Something would have had to make logic, as accurate and correct as it seems.

 

No, we did. We created logic in the same way that we created math.

 

And since ideas and laws aren't sentient, something had to make it as it is.

 

Correct, so we made our laws and logic. Although I hope you aren't talking about the laws of physics, because those aren't really laws in the traditional sense.

[Ouroboros]

 

No, we did. We created logic in the same way that we created math.

 

And since ideas and laws aren't sentient, something had to make it as it is.

 

Correct, so we made our laws and logic. Although I hope you aren't talking about the laws of physics, because those aren't really laws in the traditional sense.

Sorry, I find it a bit hard to see.

 

Did someone come up with the idea that one apple and one more appke equals two apples? And it could just as well have been 1+1=3? Was it really pure chance and subjective opinion that created the first math used in Summeria?

[Guest Valk0010]

I wonder sometimes, why in mathematics, for example, we do have say 2+2=4 actually mean say 1+1=2. Math is, at least as far as I can, a formalized understanding of phenomena. There of course could be mathematical just like logical absolutes. But they need definition. Where do we get that definition. And are all parts of mathematical thinking based in absolutes or parts of it. The same goes for logic. I honestly don't know.

[Legion]

We created logic in the same way that we created math.

I think logic is inherent in the languages of mathematics.

 

I think Valk is asking a fairly deep question here. And it's more than about logic alone. He seems to be asking about entailment in general. I believe (apparently along with Hume) that there are only two different kinds of systems where we can inquire about entailment: natural systems and formal languages (maths). In natural systems it is known as causality and in formal systems it is known as implication.

[Guest Valk0010]

I wonder sometimes, why in mathematics, for example, why couldn't we just say that 2+2=4 actually is 1+1=2. Math is, at least as far as I can, a formalized understanding of phenomena. There of course could be mathematical just like logical absolutes. But they need definition. Where do we get that definition. And are all parts of mathematical thinking based in absolutes or parts of it. The same goes for logic. I honestly don't know.

 

edited.

[Vigile]

I believe logic is inherited and innate in nature. We can't escape logic, and neither can God. So the nature of logic, math, and other fundamental laws just exist and any potential God would be dependent on it.

 

Interesting to see that we can have completely different views on this board.

 

Right. 3 apples are 3 apples, no matter what you want to call them. It's illogical to say 1 apple plus two apples gives you 4 apples.

 

Logic is simply an observation of reality.

[Ouroboros]

I wonder sometimes, why in mathematics, for example, we do have say 2+2=4 actually mean say 1+1=2. Math is, at least as far as I can, a formalized understanding of phenomena. There of course could be mathematical just like logical absolutes. But they need definition. Where do we get that definition. And are all parts of mathematical thinking based in absolutes or parts of it. The same goes for logic. I honestly don't know.

The symbols and language is something we (humans) came up with. "1" and "2" and so on are not inherently the appropriate symbols in nature to always and absolutely reference "One" and "Two" or * and **.

 

The phenomenon, however, as you term it, is there in nature without our symbolic language to represent it. That * and * together makes ** is natural, and there might be different ways of describing things, but that fact is not something we created, but something we discovered.

[Ouroboros]

I believe logic is inherited and innate in nature. We can't escape logic, and neither can God. So the nature of logic, math, and other fundamental laws just exist and any potential God would be dependent on it.

 

Interesting to see that we can have completely different views on this board.

 

Right. 3 apples are 3 apples, no matter what you want to call them. It's illogical to say 1 apple plus two apples gives you 4 apples.

 

Logic is simply an observation of reality.

Exactly.

 

In all this, I think it's very important to understand the role of language and what parts we (humans) have created and what is innate in nature.

 

The symbolic system, called language, or algebra, or calculus, is not natural. We created the symbols and ascribed the meanings to them. Like "+" for instance. There is nothing in "one apple and another apple makes two apples" that shows us that the "+" symbol is naturally "and." So the symbolic language is ours to own because we created it.

 

But the process and identities that all our symbols point to, those things are innate in nature. The concept of "1+1=2" is absolute and true. The symbols "1", "+", "=", and "2" are not absolute, but created.

 

I think following image is appropriate in this discussion:

"This is not a pipe"

[seeboh]

The phenomenon, however, as you term it, is there in nature without our symbolic language to represent it. That * and * together makes ** is natural, and there might be different ways of describing things, but that fact is not something we created, but something we discovered.

 

We created the system of mathematics to match reality. It's important to keep in mind that math doesn't transcend reality. In order to do math, it's necessary to use symbols that are mind dependent. So only minds can do math. We didn't create an apple and another apple coming together to make two apples, but we created the concept of "one", "coming together", and "two". Frankly, I don't think the apples cared. So, to an extent I agree that it is a discovery.

[Ouroboros]

The phenomenon, however, as you term it, is there in nature without our symbolic language to represent it. That * and * together makes ** is natural, and there might be different ways of describing things, but that fact is not something we created, but something we discovered.

 

We created the system of mathematics to match reality.

Which means that reality exists. Our system is a construct to match reality, absolutely. But we didn't create reality. Logic is not only a system, but it's a system that reflects what exists in reality. The logic in reality, regardless of our system to express it, must exist, or we couldn't create a system to match it.

 

It's important to keep in mind that math doesn't transcend reality. In order to do math, it's necessary to use symbols that are mind dependent. So only minds can do math. We didn't create an apple and another apple coming together to make two apples, but we created the concept of "one", "coming together", and "two". Frankly, I don't think the apples cared. So, to an extent I agree that it is a discovery.

So one apple is only one apple because we invented "one"? So before language, "one apple" as a phrase didn't exist, but did really the concept of "one apple" never exist before that? As you said, we create a system to describe reality. That means that in reality, there exists an apple, or one apple, even if we don't have words or symbols to describe it.

[Vigile]

The symbols "1", "+", "=", and "2" are not absolute, but created.

 

Maybe. The language is created, but the concept is not. Or I'm misunderstanding you.

[Ouroboros]

The symbols "1", "+", "=", and "2" are not absolute, but created.

 

Maybe. The language is created, but the concept is not. Or I'm misunderstanding you.

No, you're getting it absolutely right.

 

The language, the symbols, our descriptions, our "paintings of the thing", or our ways of describing the forms, are all created by us. English didn't exist 2,000 years ago. The math used in ancient Rome was terrible because they would write 2010 as MMX, and if you wanted to subtract 11 from it, it would look like MMX minus XI is MCMXCIX or something like that (I think I got it right, it was a long time ago I studied Roman numbers).

 

The decimal system is far superior, but we took the decimal base (10) from the number of fingers on our hands.

 

Computers use binary (base 2) and can do the exact same things in math.

 

But as you correctly realized, the concepts are not created. If we write 10+10=20 in decimal system or 1010+1010=10100 in the binary, we mean the same thing. Or if we would write X+X=XX in Roman, we still mean the same thing. The concept of •••••••••• combined with •••••••••• is the same as •••••••••••••••••••• will not change with society, language, culture, or generation.

[Vigile]

Somehow I'm able to understand this easily, yet I struggle with math. Strange.

[Ouroboros]

Somehow I'm able to understand this easily, yet I struggle with math. Strange.

Math is so much more than just understanding a few concepts. For instance, I heard that those who are really good in calculus have a hard time in statistics, and vice versa. You can be good with numbers and algebra, but poor in geometry and spatial thinking. So when you say you struggle with math, it's most likely only certain parts of math that are hard for you, and other areas could be much easier.

[Vigile]

Somehow I'm able to understand this easily, yet I struggle with math. Strange.

Math is so much more than just understanding a few concepts. For instance, I heard that those who are really good in calculus have a hard time in statistics, and vice versa. You can be good with numbers and algebra, but poor in geometry and spatial thinking. So when you say you struggle with math, it's most likely only certain parts of math that are hard for you, and other areas could be much easier.

 

That's me. Stats come very easily to me and calculus hurts my brain. Likewise, logic just comes naturally to me. Algebraic formulas, oth, not so much.

[Ouroboros]

That's me. Stats come very easily to me and calculus hurts my brain. Likewise, logic just comes naturally to me. Algebraic formulas, oth, not so much.

I'm kind of in the middle of everything. But I think I'm better with calculus, algebra, and logic than statistics.

 

(Calculus hurts my brain too, but I can do it... just not willingly. )

 

It's just like some musicians are very good at improvising, but only so-so in reading scores, and then some are very technically skilled but have a hard time improvising.

[Legion]

Logic is simply an observation of reality.

I don't know. I think nature has its own logic, so to speak, but the implications within a formal language could be radically different from the necessities of nature.