Easy proof for Inteligent Design

That's exactly what I claimed at my first post. There is another possibility that is more close to your views. That is the mind is part of the matter. If you claim that logic was with matter at first and then we human discover it then that automatically means that the mind is within matter as we can't have logic without mind. In any case what I am claiming is that there has to be definitely a mind at the creation time of the universe and not just after 13billion years. Otherwise everything falls apart.

Um, not being a philosophy or logics major, I had to look up the term "necessary truths".According to this definition: I would have to say that "necessary truths" are true irregardless of the physical universe they exist in. The question is really: Do necessary truths actual exist? And if so how would we distinguish between 'necessary truths' that exist irregardless and 'contigent truths' which only exist in our own universe. There really is no way to tell the difference thus making this a moot point.Since I nor anyone else can prove existence outside of this universe than again this is a moot point.As far as are 'necessary truths' created by the human mind I would have to say no. However the rules of logic created by the human mind and the truths i.e. the Big Bang occured 10-15 billion years ago (just accept it as a truth for argument sake) are not the same thing. Rules of logic and the language of mathematics are used to try to understand these truths. They are not the truths themselves. No, I am saying '1+1=2' and "truth" don't make sense without a 'mind' to comprehend these human concoted terms.For example, if there were two planets in a solar system, the term one planet + one planet = two planets makes no sense if there is no one to comprehend it even though it is a true statement. The two planets exist but their association with this math problem does not without an objective source aka mind to understand it.What is a 'general' mind? The only mind we know about is a human 'mind', though animals have 'minds' too we do not know there exact capacity for understanding the world around them.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.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

Agreed. But truths can exist without our human comprehension of logic. What falls apart? And why the need for a mind?

---

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

Can you just give an example so we can work on it? Give an statement which the characteristics you are claiming. The problem of you is that you think of mind as just human mind. You see statements of truth should exist somewhere according to your own claims. They either should be in matter or somebody's mind. We can't have statement of truth in the middle of no where. Besides, the very definition of any statement needs a mind to define it. You can't have any true or false unless you have mind. I have answered that already 'NO'. Physical reality do exist. Now you answer mine! Ok then we have to concentrate on truth with no statement is that correct? My friend you are just saying what others are saying. You are basically are saying that 'logical truths' are created by matter or physical world. It doesn't need such complex discussion. I hear you loud and clear. Then our mind just discovers them formulate them.You see there is a problem here. I always give examples to avoid confusions. 1+1=2 is a statement that we discovered it from matter. Let's say because we had fingers we counted that's how it is. Then why when we remove the matter still this is true?There are two main claims I have here.1- Logical truths needs a mind to create them. It is not just discovery. Because logical truths are based on some assumptions and definitions. They can't exist unless a mind exist. You are saying reality is truth. This is very vague statement. Truth is something that mind identifies. Reality or matter doesn't differentiate between truth or false. Matter just simply exist and that's it.
2- You may claim that matter includes the logical truths in itself as its properties. Then I would claim based on previous statement that then mind should also exist within matter. Therefore, my case will be rest. As I have showed you mind was a necessary force at the creation of the universe not something that came up 13billion years later. True or false are components of logic. They depend on mind. This is you that are confusing these two. I am saying matter exists with no reason as you also accept. But you can't claim that creates logic and truth and other stuff. The only thing you can talk about is its existence. You can't say it is true or false. It should be as the statement itself is defined by mind. Your problem is that you seriously want to keep mind at human level and that's why you fall into contradictions. If you accept that there is a universal mind before existence of everything. Then we have one source for logic and truth for us to compare everything with. Then we wouldn't need to fall into looping arguments. Simple as that.

Read the two statements again. Your problem is that you only see mind as human mind. I agree that truth is not dependent on human mind. But that's because of existence of the creator mind. As I said and you agreed to have logic you need to have mind. The fact is that logic existed before humans, therefore there was and is a mind before human existed. That's the source of logic which we all compare our ones with it.

Excellent! Therefore we need a mind as a source for 'necessary truths' to exist. This mind is our source of logic. According to your own and philosophers definition, 'necessary truths' exist even there is no matter. But necessary truth can't exist unless you have a mind to define them. That mind is our source of truth and false and logic. So we don't discover logic from nature. These abstract concepts exist in a reference mind. Since this mind existance is not dependent on natural world then that's why logic is always true regardless of any existence of physics. Read the topic. By general mind I meant a reference mind that needed to be existed along with matter to create this world. I don't want to use word God as it might be confused by religious guys.Edited by MrQ, : General mind

Perhaps it might surprise you to know that your view was previously advocated by Bishop Berkeley. His, of course, was more eloquently articulated, but equally irrational.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

[sarcasm]Well, I'm certain it never occurred to anyone here that your oh so subtle argument might be used to slyly support the existence of a god.[/sarcasm]

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I didn't know about him and from wiki page I couldn't find a place describing this issue.Yes, if I say 'necessary truth' exists and matter exists and laws of physics exist but they just randomly exist, they I would be cheered as a scholar! Dogmatism is the sickness that theist and atheist are both equally susceptible to it.I presented my case, if you know what is the source of 'necessary truths' then enlighten me. Because I don't know really and it seems nobody else knows it either. We have had so many responses from beginning of the topic and all contradicting each other. Nobody could answer this simple question. What is the source of logic? If not mind then were in reality it gets stored and presented?

quote:

---

Can you just give an example so we can work on it? Give an statement which the characteristics you are claiming.

---

OK, so you DON'T have even a basic idea of logic or logical truths. That is a bit unfortunate.
What's wrong with the example I already gave:
"if we have a random soup of energy of mass then we have a random soup of energy and mass"

quote:

---

The problem of you is that you think of mind as just human mind. You see statements of truth should exist somewhere according to your own claims. They either should be in matter or somebody's mind. We can't have statement of truth in the middle of no where. Besides, the very definition of any statement needs a mind to define it. You can't have any true or false unless you have mind.

---

Please don't try to tell me that my views are the opposite of what they really are. I keep telling you that we DON'T need statements to exist for them to be true. Their existence is a red herring.

quote:

---

I have answered that already 'NO'. Physical reality do exist. Now you answer mine!

---

In that case for all relevant statements the truth is NOT the statement itself.Your question is another red herring. In fact I don't think I should answer it until you explain what you think it means for an abstraction to be "real". There's too much risk of confusion.

quote:

---

Ok then we have to concentrate on truth with no statement is that correct?

---

I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. My point is that we should concentrate on the question of whether statements are true within whatever hypothetical situation we are considering without considering whether they would exist within it. Obviously the statements we are considering must exist in our reality.

quote:

---

My friend you are just saying what others are saying. You are basically are saying that 'logical truths' are created by matter or physical world. It doesn't need such complex discussion. I hear you loud and clear. Then our mind just discovers them formulate them.

---

That isn't what I am saying at all. I don't recognise any "creation" of logical truths other than the formulation of statements. Logical truths are simply statements that must be true - because they are tautologies. The only discovery would be like mathematical discovery, working out how the system works.

quote:

---

You see there is a problem here. I always give examples to avoid confusions. 1+1=2 is a statement that we discovered it from matter. Let's say because we had fingers we counted that's how it is. Then why when we remove the matter still this is true?

---

That depends on what you are talking about. If you mean counting on fingers it is meaningless without fingers to count on If you are talking about an axiomatic system we are back to logical truths (it must be true within that system). I say that the concept is one that we invented to describe reality, placing it closer to the axiomatic system - however how and even if it applies to physical reality depends on the nature of physical reality.

quote:

---

1- Logical truths needs a mind to create them. It is not just discovery. Because logical truths are based on some assumptions and definitions. They can't exist unless a mind exist. You are saying reality is truth. This is very vague statement. Truth is something that mind identifies. Reality or matter doesn't differentiate between truth or false. Matter just simply exist and that's it.

---

The only clarification I would make is that whether the statement is true or not - subjective opinions excepted - is a matter of objective fact. The mind's judgement does not influence or change that.

quote:

---

2- You may claim that matter includes the logical truths in itself as its properties. Then I would claim based on previous statement that then mind should also exist within matter. Therefore, my case will be rest. As I have showed you mind was a necessary force at the creation of the universe not something that came up 13billion years later.

---

I don't claim that. What I claim is that logical truths must be true, whether they exist or not, whether anyone knows that they are true or not. And as they are necessary truths, this must be the case.

quote:

---

True or false are components of logic. They depend on mind. This is you that are confusing these two. I am saying matter exists with no reason as you also accept. But you can't claim that creates logic and truth and other stuff. The only thing you can talk about is its existence. You can't say it is true or false.

---

If there is an objective reality - as you admitted - there must be things that are true of it independent of mind. Thus your argument fails.

quote:

---

It should be as the statement itself is defined by mind. Your problem is that you seriously want to keep mind at human level and that's why you fall into contradictions. If you accept that there is a universal mind before existence of everything. Then we have one source for logic and truth for us to compare everything with. Then we wouldn't need to fall into looping arguments. Simple as that.

---

Your whole argument depends on a contradiction, while you have found not one genuine contradiction in my arguments. If we accept that necessary truths ARE necessary truths we have no need of a "universal mind" to somehow make them true. That is a fact, that cannot be reasonably denied.

That is the only mind I am familiar with. Can you give an example of another type of mind? I am not going to go down the slippery slope of asking about evidence of a creator God which you are obviously implying here. That is a topic for another discussion which has already been beaten bloody blue. This is all meaningless semantics. You are giving the term 'logic' some mystical metaphysical meaning which is not verifiable. What? Where do you get this from? This is a complete opposite of what I am saying. Logic is just a term contrived by humans to describe how the reality we exist in functions. That is all. What source? The creator God? and what 'ones' are you talking about?

---

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

quote:

---

What's that got to do with the argument I made?! We are focusing on necessary truths and its relationship with mind. Why quantum mechanics should be involved here?!

---

It was not about the argument. I already said other people pointed out vital problems for your argument. The argument is inconsistent.First of all you should educate your self and you could study physics and focus on quantum mechanics. It is probably the only scientific subject you have a chance to "proove" god's existence.
John Polkinghorne - Wikipedia
Is a Christian and have a MA mathematics and Ph.D. in physics. Of course a lot of people say it is nonsense. One of the thing he suggest is that the nearest analogy to a physical god is Quantum Vacuum.If you start study at the university then first of all; you will start to learn a little bit more about logic than you do now. The discipline of logic is not an easy field to master. People are using a lot of time on this subject. What I am saying is you should stop being so damn naive and educate yourself instead of being in status quo forever just because you "know" you are right - proove you are right!If you could, in the future, prove God's existence I will feel mystified but think "thank God, what a process" - nobel prize for you my friend.I think you discuss with people here for the reason that it makes you excited. A way to feel god's existence. Why not make God proud instead of giving into short time excitement?

Well, I guess I don't need to point out to you how meaningless this is. 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? As you yourself mentioned, existence is something but recognizing existence is something else. You don't call this 'logical truth'. Ok. But statements should be somewhere for you to evaluate them. If they don't exist then what are you evaluating? Like if I don't ask a question from you, how can you reply? We have to evaluate based on something. 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. 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. Ok but there must be a source for them! logic is like everything else. You need to either have a source for it or just simply say it just exists. Like what I said about matter. Matter just exist with no reason. Logic can also be like that. 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. You can say this is mind, our brain or instinct or something else. Once you recognize which of these cases are you accepting then we can discuss to find out the details of them. 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. Exactly! Agreed! Yes that I completely agree. But my whole thread is about why that is the case? 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. Yes I accept that it is independent of our mind. But I assert there should be at least one mind as the reference for it. Yes but WHY?! that's the key! Why should there be anything like necessary truths? Is it because matter exists? Who defines their necessity? We need to have at least one source.

You do not comprehend very well. I will repeat myself: So basically I am saying "necessary truths" and "contigent truths" are the same creatures. Because we have no knowledge of anything outside our reality/universe, we have no way to to distinguish the two. And since contigent truths are dependent on the universe (matter and energy) that they describe than they are in a sense manufactured by that reality/universe. How can you prove this? You are miscombobulating terms here. Not necessarily your fault they all derive from the same root word but have different meanings depending on their context. I find it confusing myself. Here is the term for truth that I (and the philosophers I quoted) am using: So in this context, a "truth" exists irregardless if there is a mind to comprehend it or not. For example, the "Earth revolves around the Sun" is a truth irregardless if there are people to observe this truth or not. This has nothing to do with "truth and falsehood" as an anthropomorphic, moral term. Does that make sense? As in the case above, the Earth revolves around the sun, whether there is a reference mind or not to observe or contemplate this fact of reality aka "truth". But the mind's existance is dependent on the natural world. Can you give me an example where it is not? You are butchering the terms "logic", "true", "existance" and "physics".This is why intelligent design is a pseudoscience masquerading as science. Those who espouse it typically have no understadanding of what logic and science is. But this is what you are implying is it not? What other mind is there besides the biological (human) mind? And why does this "reference mind" NEED to exist?

---

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

This is why it is called a "truth". This 'statements' are true irregardless if there is anyone there to determine it is true or not.The Earth revolves around the Sun is true, irregardless if anyone is there to determine this to be true or not. Planet XYZ orbits star ZYX whether or not there are humans or any other mind or intelligence to determine this to be true or not.If humans never existed, these facts would still be true. Though nobody would exist for them to be called true or as you term 'evaluate' them as true. Does this make sense?It is not like if there is no one there, the Earth all of a sudden stops orbiting the Sun or disapears from existence.Truths are just terms or statements we use to describe reality. That is all.We can only describe reality by that which we know, not that which we don't know.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