Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Alex, Perhaps A Little Elaboration On Your Behalf Is In Order...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mark on November 8, 2001 19:57:57 UTC

In a previous post, you say... "Therefore everything existing has mathematical if-then (=cause-effect) relationship with more fundamental existing object."

Perhaps you can elaborate as to how this chain of logic (relationship preceded by more fundamental relationship) begins...(??)

In other words... where you say, "(=cause-effect) relationship with more fundamental existing object" ... can you please specify as to what the MOST fundamental relationship should be? What is the "first link" in this chain of logic?

If you can't do that... that's not even the problem at hand so don't worry about it. (Science/mathematics has not progressed far enough to "reach the beginning" of logic, therefore that is not a fair question to ask).

However, the "problem at hand" arises when you must then acknowledge the fact that "MOST fundamental relationship" has NOTHING more fundamental to refer too (hence what it means to be "MOST fundamental"); therefore the origin (or beginning) of "logic" is steeped in mystery, (afterall, what is the relationship to which "the beginning" references to obtain definition/meaning?).

There can be no scientific (=mathematical) answer to this one Alex... for this we must turn to philosophy (unless of course you can prove me wrong; but be reminded that referencing the conservation laws can't save ya with this one). Since "origin of logic" evades any attempt at scientific explanation... then perhaps a "nonscientific" explanation will have to suffice.

Is there room for "God" when speaking in terms of the first link in your chain of 1's and 0's? If not, then what do you propose that the first "1" or "0" in the chain refers too? If they don't refer to anything, then why should "1" mean anything different than "0"?... Our entire chain of logic would therefore reference a 1 or a 0 that really themselves have no meaning at all. In this respect... the entire universe is derived from a chain that "has no definition", therefore the universe cannot have definition (mathematical explanation).

Clearly the universe DOES have mathematical explanation (=physics); therefore clearly "1" and "0" ARE defined. However, the only way to make "logic" have a "beginning" is if someone or something steps in and says, "1 is different from 0"; that way we finally have a "MOST fundamental relationship".

He that differentiated 1 from 0, is he that consequently created logic/mathematics. As you would say Alex... the cosmos followed soon as a logical consequence (chain of 1's and 0's). If you don't believe in a creator/differentiator... then you don't believe in 1's & 0's (mathematics), or that "logic" (=system of relationships) has any foundation from which to begin building.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins