4
   

Logic the only Absolute-

 
 
Brabke
 
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 03:27 am

The absolute proof of 'god' or the evidence for the Absolute:

The eternal laws of logic, mathematics and others are the only things that can be called absolute and transcendent;
therefore, all the rest, that is, there are evolved. So God is nothing else than absolute ‘logos’, the absolute consciousness or idea, from which all proceeds, and further us not be known.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 2,540 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 04:30 am
@Brabke,
if god was that how then a human being like me can b logical ???
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 05:12 am
@Brabke,
Brabke wrote:
The eternal laws of logic, mathematics and others are the only things that can be called absolute and transcendent. . .
That might be true but it will at least depend on whether there are any eternal laws of logic or mathematics. Is there any reason to suppose that there are?
Brabke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 08:42 am
@imans,
-The man himself is a "here and now" of a supra-solipsism, the absolute, logical idea itself, creating everything in a will and representation.
Brabke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 08:50 am
@ughaibu,
-Eternal Laws such as mathematics, logic and other sciences are absolutely necessary and immutable.
-Everything else is contingent on that absolute being.
-A personal god - if it existed - would also have to submit to such absolute ideas.
-So everything is a logical evolution of an absolute idea ...
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:02 am
@Brabke,
Brabke wrote:
-Eternal Laws such as mathematics, logic and other sciences are absolutely necessary and immutable.
But you've given no reason for your reader to suppose that your above assertion is plausible, not least because you've made no attempt to justify the implicit claim that there are any such "eternal laws".
Brabke wrote:
-Everything else is contingent on that absolute being.
This assertion is also unsupported.
Brabke wrote:
-A personal god - if it existed - would also have to submit to such absolute ideas.
What is a "personal god" and why would it "have to submit to such absolute ideas"?
Brabke wrote:
-So everything is a logical evolution of an absolute idea ...
You haven't given your reader any reason to suppose that your conclusion is a meaningful statement, never mind arguing for its plausibility.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:13 am
Well, all of that is wonderfully incoherent. This is much like a circle jerk.
Brabke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:41 am
@Setanta,
-Despite everything, can not be denied, that only logical regularities absolutely necessary, and to precede everything.
-The absolute 'must have' of that logic is a will, who, like us want to be energy, and energy can be converted to any mass or matter.
-Or ... "E = mc ² '... is "E = mc ² = Psy '; psy is the absolute Logos.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:44 am
@Brabke,
Valerie,
Try it in Dutch (from the end of Blankenberge Pier perhaps !)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:48 am
@Brabke,
I rather believe that logos is the expression of an absolute, or better said whatever is the case to be true...the correlation between events to which you assert logic cannot be justified by logic but rather logic is justified by such correlation...so if you're just asserting that whatever is the case is indeed the case, the tautology isn't much informative at all...
If I were to indulge in any idea of a "God" I would opt to state that as a source God is not logic but rather the source of logic or the justification of logic, and all of this indulging in the idea that determinism is true and that by "God" we are referring to a final source or a first cause which might or might not be the case...finally I would like to state that a case for a personnel God is highly unlikely as a source in this context is portrait more like an abstract "entity" and hardly can it have anything resembling a personnel thinking living God...
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:57 am
Regarding the absolute-ness of logic, Nietzsche said (in The Will to Power) :
"An assumption that is irrefutable--why should it for that reason be 'true'? This proposition may perhaps outrage logicians, who posit their as the limitations of things: but I long ago declared war on this optimism of logician."
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 09:57 am
First you write:

Quote:
So God is nothing else than absolute ‘logos’, the absolute consciousness or idea, from which all proceeds, and further us not be known.


Leaving aside that the coherence of the statement is dodgy, you then write in a subsequent post:

Quote:
-A personal god - if it existed - would also have to submit to such absolute ideas.


Which calls into question the existence of a god. For whatever your intent was, you've contradicted yourself, and made a muddle of whatever it was you intended to say. So, ergo, ipso fatso, your propositions are incoherent.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 10:03 am
@Brabke,
Your transcendental view of logic and mathematics is challenged by The "Embodied Cognition" theorists such as George Lakoff.
Quote:
Embodied mind theories hold that mathematical thought is a natural outgrowth of the human cognitive apparatus which finds itself in our physical universe. For example, the abstract concept of number springs from the experience of counting discrete objects. It is held that mathematics is not universal and does not exist in any real sense, other than in human brains. Humans construct, but do not discover, mathematics.
With this view, the physical universe can thus be seen as the ultimate foundation of mathematics: it guided the evolution of the brain and later determined which questions this brain would find worthy of investigation. However, the human mind has no special claim on reality or approaches to it built out of math. If such constructs as Euler's identity are true then they are true as a map of the human mind and cognition.
Embodied mind theorists thus explain the effectiveness of mathematics — mathematics was constructed by the brain in order to be effective in this universe.
The most accessible, famous, and infamous treatment of this perspective is Where Mathematics Comes From, by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez. In addition, mathematician Keith Devlin has investigated similar concepts with his book The Math Instinct.
Wikipedia
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 10:13 am
@JLNobody,
Logic may indeed represent an absolute if determinism is true which we cannot be certain of, that is to say, it can be true if there is indeed a constancy throughout all the space and time on which a sequence of events demonstrates a perfect coherent correlation of phenomena with Universal immutable laws...such claim cannot be verified for obvious reasons although so far it seams plausible. That been clarified we must further emphasize that logic doesn't have any logic to it other then whatever is the case to be factual, as whatever happens happens...perhaps the argument can be made that if such immutable rules are not present reality would be fragmentary and as an irrational unrelated and untreatable in which case we would not speak of it as a whole, or would only refer to that "whole" we could relate with, itself a part of a disconnected continuum of transcendent unknowable events...
0 Replies
 
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 12:02 pm
@Brabke,
here and now is present absolute objective fact which is much superior to any abstraction of will realisation
then accordin to what u r speculatin about man, man is superior to ur means of god definition, which is impossible, what is superior is what exist always, so it is as if u r statin that god do not exist but humans exist only
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 12:37 pm
@imans,
which is also impossible bc actually it contradicts ur means while it matter only accordin to ur means, when u get an opposite result to what u expect or mean then ur means are false but also the result obtained

objectively man or humans are miserable beings that are possessed by force to look standin individually, while subjectively they are slaves to keep meanin existin for the system that could provide an objective unity in forms to their mutual different realities in exchange to their individual rights, which lead always to the despotism of government powers that force existin being them only in easiest ways of evil which start by living as one all subjectively done fast
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 01:02 pm
@imans,
Je "bent" immers ongetwijfeld, maar je "denkt" ongeveer zoveel als een echoput ! In de tweede regel staat immers een kanjer van een logische blunder waardoor al de rest waardeloos is. Je mag hem zelf zoeken, dan zijn we even gerust !
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 02:22 pm
@fresco,
You 'are' because there is no doubt, but you'll 'thinks' about as much as a echoput ! In the second line is in fact a stallion of a logical mistake which all the rest is worthless. You may search for it, we are equally happy !
imans
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 02:49 pm
@imans,
hypocrit that is all what u r, when u r happy then u cant b but opposed to any other happiness, ur positive life is one while all is being objective destructions, that by itself prove ur deformation of logics for its own abuse

anyway ur own sentences are provin it clearly, if what is present is what really exist then there is no happiness possible it is just a matter of reality so always objective obligations to least sense of freedom out needs
and when u clearly mean a kind of despot that accordin to u know how to please everyone equally then claimin existence being a fact is wether a lie so the despot premise is also a lie reason of a liar, or a claim for evil life done by killin constantly any right existence fact
which is the same result u wont get anything of self rights themselves freedom but to say ur truth and the proof of all evil u belong to

logics use are much more for wrong identification when rights are what is there free alone constantly

that is how conscious in the common sense is about obligations and values respect rules to submit to

when what u write is all about u or another then u r provin how u should not look existin and why u r so happy then about it

when i mean to answer a topic or comment a conception about smthg, then i would involve myself relatively which is nothing to any at all so especially to me since that relative is clearly to an idea i realize about others adoption to, so very much relative in absolute terms to else

at the end u proved being from objective shape of being never of u

there is no comparaison between true existence reality so the absolute constant repetitive fact which is never positive and objective superiority which is always positive
u pretend being of urself perception as being which is impossible what perceive is the being real not what u perceive even if u mean perceivin urself while u prove then being evil livin since u r usin urself by killin it to get to pretend bein over positive

logics are never the source of anything, when anything is a fact logics are simple result of its present reality
when logics mean sources it proves too how logics cant b any source

but here again u prove how and why comfortable is for u to worship a powerful despotic government that u happy can freely subjectively identify to as easiest way to appear being constant

0 Replies
 
imans
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Oct, 2012 02:55 pm
and in free objective logics, positive constant is exclusively bc of negative destructions, that is how positive is as provin superiority being truth so positive absolutely able to kill absolutely negative

positive is not bc it must b like that u have just to seek ur happiness moron, that is what all and urself are always doin with ur gods and here is the end of it ur destructions
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Logic the only Absolute-
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/15/2017 at 07:52:14