Easy proof for Inteligent Design

No they are not the same. For example two statements 1+1=2 and "earth revolves the sun". For the first we don't need anything else we know it is true. But for the second, we have to have physical world to observe it, so by itself it is neither true or false. Basically we can't evaluate it. There are various ways. The easy one is that for every logical statement there are parts and components to it. Like 1+1=2. One should know meaning and definition of '1' , '+', '=' and '2' so the value of it can be evaluated. Recognizing and valuating these needs a mind.Another way is that we do a thought experiment. We assume that we have early universe and some matter and energy in it. If we are claiming 'necessary truth' were true even before humans then we have to find a way for matter and energy to yield these 'necessary truths' for us. Since we know matter and energy don't have this capacity then there must be something else out there which is not from matter and energy and can do these evaluations. That is called mind.Another easier way which everybody can feel it is that we see what it the current source of it? the answer would be our mind. If we accept them to be truth before us then there must be a similar source before human existed. Then that would be the reference mind. No not at all! There is nothing outside mind that can tell us this sentence is true. As I said you need to define all the components of it first and then evaluate it. So when you don't have mind, the whole question will be meaningless. But this is not what I am talking about. This is contingent truth. I am talking about necessary truth. Please don't mix the two unless we will be in deep trouble! The fact is that motion is relative and you need to say who is the observer. That's why I told you please leave these contingent truths alone as they cause more chaos than what we are already in. Please use 1+1=2 as example. We have no knowledge of that as of yet. It can be. In that case the reference mind will be a property of original mass and energy that created this world. The fact that I am claiming is that there should be a reference mind. May be some day we find out that a random soup of mass and energy creates one. Then that's fine with me. But we need it at the birth time of the universe not 13bil years later. Ok then you educate me! I answered it above. God of religion has its own characteristics which I don't want to get into it now. For me all I need is to prove existence of a mind at the time of the birth of creation.Edited by MrQ, : subject

quote:

---

Ok then you educate me!

---

Maybe University?

quote:

---

Well, I guess I don't need to point out to you how meaningless this is.

---

Ultimately all logical truths are like that. That is the point.

quote:

---

But lets accept it. Now does this random soup by itself knows and recognize that it exists or is it a mind that recognize that?

---

From my position that is completely irrelevant. It doesn't need to. All it needs to do is be what it is. According to your position, in the absence of minds it can't even do that. Doesn't that sound just a little bit silly to you ?

quote:

---

Ok. But statements should be somewhere for you to evaluate them.

---

Since they don't NEED to be evaluated that is irrelevant.

quote:

---

Mean that a mind will testify its existence as of the physical world. Like I don't need to convince you or anybody that 1+1=2 as I don't need to convince you or anybody that sun exists. Both 1+1=2 and 'Sun exists' are two logical statements which are valuated as true in every logical mind. Mean equality between 1+1 and 2 exist as sun exist. They are of the same substance.

---

THe existence of the sun is NOT a logical truth. It's an example of an empirically derived truth. At the simplest level you see the sun and conclude that it exists. You can't work it out by pure reason alone.

quote:

---

That's true. That's why I claim there is a relation between existence and truth of a statement. But you are trying to separate it. You are telling me to forget about its existence.

---

And you are wrong to do so. We need the statement to evaluate it - but only for us to work out if it is true or not. Not for it to BE true. And that is why I tell you to forget about the existence of statements, it is irrelevant and it confuses the issue. That's been your problem all along.

quote:

---

Ok but there must be a source for them! l

---

It only needs us to formulate them. No other source is needed or would even add anything. Again you are hung up on the existence of statements - when it just doesn't matter.

quote:

---

But you can't simply say we formulate. From where do we formulate it from? There should be something out there that giving us this information.

---

The only information you NEED is the basic axioms - say, the truth tables for AND, OR, NOT. You could use a few other items to construct statements using them, but what they are doesn't matter (besides you could make them up - they don't need to be true)

quote:

---

We didn't invent it as it existed before us. 1+1=2 even if there was no earth or there were no humans. You might says we invented the way to present it with numbers and signs but its deep meaning existed already.

---

The things we model with it - or some of them - existed but I wouldn't call that a "deep meaning". What "deep meaning" are you talking about ?

quote:

---

Exactly! Agreed!

---

And that's what I've been saying all along. Physics doesn't need a mind. It just needs stuff to do what it does.

quote:

---

Yes that I completely agree. But my whole thread is about why that is the case?

---

Well no, you started this thread to disagree and insist that a mind had to be involved.Logical truths are true because they are constructed so that they HAVE to be true. The law of non-contradiction holds because the negation of a statement is defined as covering all possibilities excluded by the statement and only those possibilities. Thus a statement and it's negation may never both be true because each excludes the possibility that the other is true. There's nothing more to it. It's not magic, it doesn't require any knowledge beyond the basic axioms and an understanding of which ever statements you want to use. There's no need for anyone else to get involved.

quote:

---

I was trying to explain that if we accept the same fact that you pointed out we need to have a reference mind in existence before anything else. That reference mind is the source of all these logic.

---

And you are completely and utterly wrong. No source other than the human is needed. Because logic is about how you use statements, not about the external world. The laws of logic are semantic rules, not laws governing reality.

quote:

---

Yes but WHY?! that's the key!

---

And, as I said above, it's because they are constructed to be true. It's all our doing. You could do it, if you knew how (and the basic rules aren't difficult - the only hard bit is making sure that you REALLY understand the statements that you are using and that they are COMPLETELY unambiguous).

Is this a joke? No, seriously, is this a joke?The laws of physics don't actually exist. Neither are the laws in logic. These are just human conventions to impose/superimpose a pattern onto what we observe in reality.So, seriously, are you joking or are you like 12 years old? If you had taken any science class or any logic class at all in college, you would have known that the laws of physics and the laws of logic don't actually exist in the real world and that they are just human conventions.Everything else is non-sense. Even if your premises are true, your logical conclusion makes absolutely no sense.Your so-called logical proof is no better than the one used by early religionists.The greatest being in the universe must exist.God is the greatest being in the universe.God must exist.If you can't see the obvious flaw in that line of logic, then I suppose your sorry of an excuse for a logical proof makes sense to you after all.

This is the typical creationist attitude that I have seen over the years. You come here expecting someone to tell you a whole lifetime's worth of scientific and philosophy study in a paragraph or so.I'm sorry for sounding condescending and downright mean, but your attempt at using the words "logic", "science", "physics," and other academic concepts are failing miserably. You toss those words around as if you know anything about the topics they describe. You don't.I see that other people may have the patience to answer your questions. They can continue entertaining you if they want. But my advice to you is to sign up for some classes at your local college for god's sake. I don't think my eyes have rolled this far up before.

Actually for both we need the physical world to put into practice. What does "1+1=2", pi or the limit of c, mean if there is nothing to which they refer to.Furthermore, how did we derive 1+1=2 in the first place?Yes, in mathematics and logistics we can determine mathematical concepts and principles cognitively without any reference to the outside world. However, the language of mathematics has its origins in the reality we live in and without our physical world it is truely meaningless. 'Existance' occurs irrelevant on whether an observer or evaluator is there to determine somethings existence. 'Meaning' or 'purpose' by its very definition requires an evaluator/mind.Thus, 1+1=2 ultimately is meaningless without a mind. Right, we can't evaluate it without the physical world to observe it. However, just because we can't evaluate it, doesn't make it any less true. "Truths" are true whether or not there is an outside observer. It is a tough concept to understand because we try to internalize everything but it really does make sense.Atoms exist in this universe whether or not anyone is around to observe them. That is a 'truth' and it is true irregardless if any mind or human ever existed to observe this to be true or not. Of course if there was no one to determine this, than nobody would know that this to be a 'truth', but that doesn't make this statement any less of a 'truth'. Ok, again, how can you determine if some is a 'necessary' vice 'contigent' truth? How do you know that a truth is not contigent on anything inside the reality we live in?The fact is there is no method or process that we can determine this. Thus 'necessary' and 'contigent' truths are the same.Furthermore, it is not that 1+1=2 does not exist, it is that 1+1=2 has no meaning with no observer. Matter exists, numbers are symbolic representations of the interaction of matter and energy and thus do not exist. So it makes no sense to say that 1+1=2 exists. I am not sure if anyone is claiming this or not. I am not claiming this.Have to run. Will discuss the rest of your post later.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Hi Taz,I think a comment such as ''are you like 12 years old'',etc. is unnecessary. If you feel MrQ is unwilling to learn, then you may suggest this in a more polite manner.I say this in a preventive way because I feel this thread could easily slip into nothing constructive.(PS By the way. in a logical argument, if the premises are true and no fallacy is commited, then the logical conclusion must also be true.)Edited by AdminSlev, : No reason given.

Hi, MrQ.I realize that English probably isn’t your first language, and I’m not entirely certain whether my inability to understand you is due to a language barrier or just due to your esoteric logic. Are you familiar with the term reification? Basically, reification is treating something abstract as if it were concrete. This is what you are arguing: that abstract concepts, such as mathematics and logic, exist in the same sense that concrete things exist.Reification is universally regarded as a logical fallacy: there is no evidence that ideas are restricted by the same set of rules as physical objects, and no evidence that ideas and objects are interdependent.The only time reification is not considered a fallacy is when it is used metaphorically. This means it functions only as a literary device, and not as a valid component of a logical arguments. So, any argument that incorporates reification (such as yours) is either metaphorical or fallacious.----- Has it ever occurred to you that the human mind is the only example of a mind that we actually know of?
Given this, it shouldn’t surprise you that, when people search for an example, they choose the human mind. This does not mean that they cannot fathom the idea of a non-human mind: it only means that they do not know of another example of a mind to use in their analogies.These are intelligent people, and they do understand logic: give them a little credit.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Excellent post BlueJay. You said in one post what I have been trying to get across to MrQ this whole thread.I learned something new. I had never heard the term 'reifiation' before.Thanks!

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

What are you referring to here? Where did Taz misrepresent a logical argument?

Hi, Theodoric. Taz didn't misrepresent a logical argument, but he did say this: That's what AdminSlev is responding to.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

What Bluejay highlighted, if the conclusion makes no sense it means either that a fallacy was commited, or that at least one premise is false. If neither of those is the case, then even if the conclusion makes no sense it must still be true.

You're sure that you don't want to change sides?

That is actually true. The subject is hard enough for even english speakers to have problems. Beside that I am not usually a good writer. But I will try to make things more clear. Thanks for your advice. I really wish it was as easy as you put it forward. Unfortunately, today philosophers have constant problems in categorization of things. Also, as you go deeper in interpretation of the reality, things gets fuzzy. It would be very hard to draw a distinguishable line between concrete and abstract object. That's why this fallacy intermingles with the blurred line between abstract and concrete makes it unusable. Specially after the advent of quantum mechanics, things got far worse. Anyway, I didn't want to divert the subject but it seems I don't have any choice we have to cover some stuff before we get back to the subject. One question:Do you believe MS Word is a concrete or an abstract object?I leave it for you to answer this. This will relate to subject later.At this moment, I want to summarize my position considering all the comments poured in after my first post as I feel we got seriously distracted by various comment exchanges.I believe that reason for the fact that the world around us is so astonishingly, explained by mathematics is not just a coincidence. It can't be! I believe that logic is inter-weaved into the fabric of the universe and that's why mathematics and physics are successful. Also the fact that our mind is so logical that even thinking about an illogical thing like 1+1=3 makes us go dizzy is not a coincidence. The physical laws have shaped us during the passage of the time and also since birth everything around us looked and behaved like that. That's why discoveries in quantum physics looks so distant and strange to us. I also believe some abstract concept as we name it today have concrete effects and influences in the real world. I think the reference mind(my invention for the word God) is the software for universe and it actually interacts with it. That's why logic and necessary truths are the base for law of physics. Exactly as a computer software that controls and utilize physical computer. The same is true for humans. I think mind is a software for the brain and that's why nobody can locate it in the brain!Now, many people might laugh at me or other scientists with the same views. Scientist have even developed many theories to explain how can this sort of mind interact and created my matter which of-course they haven't yet been endorsed by experiments. But their theories are mathematically sound and they are different from bunch of superstitious ideas of religious creationist. At this point, puting forward a theory for the original reference mind is not a goal for me. I just want to point people based on philosophical arguments that this can be the case. After that it is up to the scientist to find a plausible theory for it with confirming experiments.Poeple here have the positivist philosophical view toward the world and that's why this is very hard for them to sallow. They want to ultimately connect everything to matter and energy. I don't blame that. In fact it might be true that the mind that I am talking about can be created at the early stages of the universe. In one comment one person said for creating logic we just need some basic principles like AND, OR, NOT,... which is true. With these you are settled to create all the necessary truths that we talked about. So don't think that if you accept this you will be doomed! Mind can have and should have simpler components exactly like matter. But the fact that these two work together to give you the universe that exist today, becomes clearer everyday.Now back to my argument. I think necessary truths should have a concrete representation in real world. You can't evaluate a non-existent statement. They are the roots and part of laws of physics. Therefore, they must exist before human's coming. This is also endorsed by philosophers that's why they are named necessary truths. Because they have to be true irrespective to our existence, otherwise everything falls apart. They themselves are identified and presented by our mind. But the basic concept is concrete and it is there. Now this concrete base can't be created by matter or energy alone. Still it is a product of mind. As it is in our case. This is our mind that tells us 1+1=2. We don't need to even teach or train it. It works like that. Therefore, there must be an earlier mind which I call it as reference mind which injected this logic and necessary truths in our world.Now people, here are saying that I am puting the horse behind the cart. If that's true, please answer me following question with your kind of theory:1- Why mathematics does explain the world so good?
2- Why all human beings agree on necessary truths and logic but differ on everything else?
3- How necessary truths get recognized and respected by matter?My theory at least can successfully explain above questions. But so far, i didn't hear anything from anybody except that they say it happens to be like that! How? We don't know! Edited by MrQ, : SpellEdited by MrQ, : fun!

Better that they see it from me on an anonymous online forum than embarrassing themselves in a public meeting. I have absolutely no respect for people who wants society to revert back to the dark ages. You know, the same kind that last year in my town meeting stood up in front of everyone and proclaimed that "homosexuality causes teenage pregnancy." You know, the same kind that applauded his claim. If the premises are true, it doesn't necessarily lead to a logical, or even sane, conclusion. His logical progression makes absolutely no sense. I'm not going to bend over backward and accommodate for every crackpot idea that people can fathom.