"I can't accept these concepts as epiphenomenal."
Why not? It is a logical impossibility?
"the concept of 'God' is easily deducible based on believable premises:
1) The universe has mathematical laws in place that cause the universe to behave mathematically"
All right. But whether or not these laws are integral to the universe itself or has an outside source has yet to be established.
"2) Mathematical laws stem from simple axioms being 'true'"
Though I'm unschooled in advanced mathematical and philosophical theory, I'd suggest that mathematical law is true by its very nature: it doesn't need a root. Show me a universe where 2 plus 2 does not equal 4, or where the square root of a negative number has a real value.
If you're referring to the specific natural laws which follow mathematical formulae, or constants (gravitational constant, the quantum value h, etc.) then I would agree with you, however I don't know if it requires external intervention to have created these axioms. To say that the axioms themselves are eternal and causeless seems to be just as plausible as to say that the axioms that run our universe have a cause, which in turn have their cause, ad infinitum.
"3) Truth is a real concept that exists"
Well, I don't know what it means to say that truth "exists," I mean, if something exists it must be true, by definition. The idea of "truth," I think, requires a consciousness capable of discriminating fallacies.
"4) Truth is equivalent to 'intelligence'"
You've never been one to say nutty things, Harv, and I'm sorry if this statements sounds downright nutty to me. If you're claiming that it takes intelligence to create a concept such as "truth," I agree. But I don't see how that establishes the existence of anything. If you're arguing that it takes an intelligent source to create a universe in which things can be said to be "true" by intelligent beings, I guess I just don't see the connection. |